supertund guidance on preparing superfund o decision · pdf filesupertund guidance on...

United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency

Office of Emergency andRemedial ResponseWashington. DC 20460

Directive 9355.3-02January 1992

Supertund

Guidance onPreparing SuperfundDecision Documents

Preliminary Draft

000o

CEPJ^Ll^ ( D ;At^aT^i^SStO ^ A3 ^

Q00

Directive 9335.3-02 00

GUIDANCE ONPREPARING SUPERFUND DECISION DOCUMENTS

PRELIMINARY DRAFT

January 1992

Office of Emergency and Remedial ResponseU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 20460

January 16, 1992 Preliminary Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Cite

Notice

This document has been subjected to the Agency*s review process and approved for publication as anEPA document. Additional copies of this document can be obtained from:

Center for Environmental Research and Information26 W. Martin Luther King DriveCincinnati, Ohio 45268(513) 569-7562

The policies and procedures set out in this document are intended solely for the guidance ofresponse personnel. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights, substantiveor procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. The Agency reserves theright to act at variance with these policies and procedures and to change them at any time without publicnotice. --.-

January 16, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Citei

Table of Contents

^00©

S50

List of Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Acronyms Used in This Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Purpose of This Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Overview of the Superfimd Remedial Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2.1 The Pre-Remedial Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2.2 Determination of Lead and Support Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2.3 Potentially Responsible Party(ies) (PRPs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.2.4 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.2.5 Preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 .6 Proposed Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

. . . . . 1,2.7 Record of Decision (ROD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2.8 Remedial Design (RD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2.9 Remedial Action (RA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.3 Outline of this Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.0 THE PROPOSED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1 Purpose of the Proposed Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.2 Writing the Proposed Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.3 Section-by-Section Description of the Proposed Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.3.2 Site Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.3.3 Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action . . . . . . . . . . 132.3.4 Summary of Site Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.3.5 Summary of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.3.6 The Evaluation of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.3.7 Community Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

January 16, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Citeii

Table of Contents (continued) LO0

2.4 Formats for the Proposed Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 °©

2.4.1 Fact Sheet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 °2.4.2 Expanded Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.0 THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPOSED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.2 Roles and Responsibilities of the Lead Agency andSupport Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.2.1 Designation of Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.2.2 Lead and Support Agency Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.2.3 Management Review of the Proposed Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.2.4 Support Agency Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.3 Procedures for Resolving Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.4 Role of Other Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.5 Role of Potentially Responsible Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.0 THE NEWSPAPER NOTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITYOF THE PROPOSED PLAN AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD . . . . . . 26

4.1 Statutory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.2 Writing the Newspaper Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.3 Public Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5.0 PRE-ROD CHANGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5.2 Identifying Types ofPre-ROD Changes . . ;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

t

5.2.1 Minor Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305.2.2 Significant Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5.3 Documenting Pre-ROD Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.3.1 Documenting Minor Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

January 16, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Citeiii

Table of Contents (continued)

5.3.2 Documenting Significant Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.0 WRITING THE RECORD OF DECISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.1.1 Purpose of the Record of Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.1.2 Statutory Requirements to Issue the Record of Decision .6.1.3 Major Components of the Record of Decision . . . . . . .

6.2 Key Elements of the Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.2.1 Site Name and Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.2.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.2.3 Assessment of the Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.2.4 Description of the Selected Remedy . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.2.5 Statutory Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.2.6 Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the Remedy

6.3 Key Elements of the Decision Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.3.1 Site Name, Location, and Description . . . . . . . . . . . ..63.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities . . . . . . . . . . .6.3.3 Highlights of Community Participation . . . . . . . . . . . .6.3.4 Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action . .6.3.5 Summary of Site Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.3.6 Summary of Site Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.3.7 Description of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.3.8 Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives . .6.3.9 The Selected Remedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.3.10 Statutory Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.3.11 Documentation of Significant Changes . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.4 The Responsiveness Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.5 Submitting RODs to EPA Headquarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.0 THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE RECORD OF DECISION

7.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.1.1 State Preparation of the ROD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.1.2 Remedy Selection for State-Lead Enforcement Actions . .7.1.3 Roles and Responsibilities of Other Federal Agencies . .

January 16, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Citeiv

Table of Contents (continued)F^

7.2 Roles and Responsibilities of Lead Agency and Support Agency . . . . . . . . . 72 ^7.2.1 Lead Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 °7.2.2 Support Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 ^

07.3 Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

7.4 Role of Other EPA and State Program Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

7.5 Role of Potentially Responsible Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

7.6 Issuing Notice of Availability of the ROD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

8.0 POST-ROD CHANGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

8.1 Evaluating Post-ROD Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

8.2 Types of Post-ROD Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

8.3 Documenting Post-ROD Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

8.3.1 Documenting Non-Significant Post-ROD Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79-8Ji.2 Documenting Significant Post-ROD Changes:

. ., - - - Explanation of Significant Differences (ESDs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798.3.3 Documenting Fundamental Post-ROD Changes:

ROD Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

9.0 DOCUMENTING NO ACTION, INTERIM ACTION, ANDCONTINGENCY REMEDY DECISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

9.1 Documenting No Action Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

.9.1.1 No Action Situation ^1: Action Not Necessary for Protection . . . . . . 839.1.2 No Action Situation #2: No CERCLA Authority to Take Action . . . 849.1.3 No Action Situation ff3: No Further Action Necessary . . . . . . . . . . 85

9.2 Documenting Interim Action Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

9.2.1 Interim Actions vs. Early Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869.2.2 Interim Action ROD Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

9.3 Documenting Contingency Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

January 17, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Citev

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Table of Contests (continued)

Description of a Hypothetical Site . . . . . . . . .

Sample Proposed Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Worksheets for the Summary Comparative Analysis ofAlternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Helpful Hints: How to Prepare and Submit DecisionDocuments to Headquarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sources of Information

January 16, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Citevi

List of Highlights

HighlightNumber Title

1 The Remedial Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Goal and Expectations for Superfund Remedial Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 Outline for the Proposed Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4 Mandatory Risk Language for Proposed Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5 The Nine Remedial Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6 Hints for Preparing the Nine Criteria Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

7 Preparation of the Proposed Plan by the Lead Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

8 Sample Newspaper Notification of Availability of the Proposed Plan . . . . . . . . . 27

9 Change&.That Significantly Affect Scope, Performance, and/or Cost . . . . . . . . . 31

10 Pre-ROD Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

11 Examples of Pre-ROD Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

12 Outline for the Standard Record of Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

13 Sample Declaration for the Record of Decision: Statutory Preferencefor Treatment As a Principal Element Is Met and Five-Year Site Review IsNot Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

14 Standard Language for the Statement of Basis and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

15 Required Language for Assessment of the Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

16 Sample Declaration for the Record of Decision: Statutory Preferencefor Treatment As a Principal Element Is Not Met and Five-Year Site ReviewIs Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

17 Sample Language for Community Participation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

18 Sample Language for Scope and Role of Operable Unit Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

19 Sample Language for Human Health Risks Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

January 16, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Citevii

List of Highlights (continued)

20 EPA Weight-of-Evidence Classification System for Carcmogenicity . . .

21 Sample Language for Toxicity Assessment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . .

22 Sample Language for Risk Characterization Summary . . . . . . . . . . .

23 Sample Language for Summary of Site Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24 Sample Summary of Site Risks Based on Current Land Use . . . . . . . . .

25 Illustration of Components of Alternatives to be Described . . . . . . . . .

26 Description of Details for Each Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27 Sample Description of a Remedial Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28 Examples of ARARs That May Apply to Superfund Remedial Actions . .

29 Sample Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30 Sample Selected Remedy Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31 ..Example Cost Summary for the Selected Remedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32 Sample Language for TBCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33 Sample Statutory Determinations Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 Three Examples of Documentation of Significant Changes . . . . . . . . . .

35 Lead Agency Responsibility in ROD Development Process . . . . . . . . .

36 Sample Newspaper Notification of Availability of the Record of Decision

37 Post-ROD Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38 Sample Format for ESD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 Sample Format for ROD Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 Situations Where No Action Decisions May Be Appropriate . . . . . . . . .

41 Examples of Possible Interim and Early Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

January 17, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Citeviii

Preface

This Guidance on Preparing Superftmd Decision Documents is being issued to improve the qualityand completeness of Records of Decision and related documents. TTlis guidance benefited from a reviewof past Superfund Records of Decision and defines important items to be addressed in documenting siteremediation decisions. e

This guidance does not cover the selection of remedy process itself. TOs is addressed in a separateguidance, A Guide to Selecting Superftmd Remedial Actions (OSWER Directive No. 9355.0-27FS,April

January 16, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Citeix

Acronyms Used in this Guidance

AA Assistant AdministratorACL Alternate Concentration LimitARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementBDAT Best Demonstrated Available TechnologyBPJ Best Professional JudgmentCA Cooperative AgreementCAA Clean Air ActCDI Chronic Daily IntakeCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 19

as amendedCERCLIS CERCLA Information SystemCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCWA Clean Water ActEP Extraction ProcedureEPA Environmental Protection AgencyESD Explanation of Significant DifferencesFR Federal RegisterFS Feasibility StudyFWQC . Federal Water Quality CriteriaHI Hazard IndexHQ . Hazard QuotientHRS. . . --.--" Hazard Ranking SystemLAG Interagency AgreementLDRs Land Disposal RestrictionsLSI Listing Site InvestigationMCLs Maximum Contaminant LevelsMCLGs Maximum Contaminant Level GoalsMEP Maximum Extent PracticableMPRSA Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries ActNAAQs National Ambient Air Quality StandardsNAPLs Nonaqueous Phase LiquidsNCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency PlanNPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNPL National Priorities ListOERR Office of Emergency and Rc.-aedial ResponseO&M Operation and MaintenanceOSC On-Scene CoordinatorOSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency ResponseOU Operable UnitOWPE Office of Waste Programs EnforcementPA Preliminary AssessmentPCBs Polychlorinated BiphenylsPOTW Publicly Owned Treatment WorksPRP Potentially Responsible PartyRA Regional Administrator or Remedial Action

January 16, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Citex

RCRARIRD/RARfDRODRPMSARASDWASFsn*SMOASSCSSISWDATBCTMVTSCA

Acronyms Used in this Guidance (continued)

Resource Conservation and Recovery ActRemedial InvestigationRemedial Design/Remedial ActionReference DoseRecord of DecisionRemedial Project ManagerSuperfimd Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986Safe Drinking Water ActSlope FactorState Implementation PlanSuperfund Memorandum of AgreementState Superfimd ContractScreening Site InvestigationSolid Waste Disposal ActTo Be ConsideredToxicity, Mobility, or VolumeToxic Substances Control Act

January 16, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Citexi

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDANCE

This "Guidance on Preparing SuperfundDecision Documents" (commonly referred to asthe "ROD Guidance") has been developed to:(1) present standard formats for documentingSuperfund remedial action decisions; (2) clarifythe roles and responsibilities of theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA). states,and other federal agencies in developing andissuing decision documents; and (3) explain howto address changes made to proposed andselected remedies. The decision documentsaddressed by this guidance are the ProposedPlan. the Record of Decision (ROD), meExplanation of Significant Differences (ESD),and the ROD amendment.1 Section 117 of theComprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation^, and -Liability. Act of 1980(CERGLA),"as amended by the SuperfundAmendments and Reautborization Act of 1986(SARA), requires the issuance of these decisiondocuments for remedial actions taken pursuant tosections 104, 106, 120. and 122.2 TheNational Oil and Hazardous SubstancesContingency Plan (NCP) incorporates therequirements and provisions of SARA.3 Thisguidance has been prepared on the basis ofSARA and the NCP, as promulgated on March8, 1990 (55 £R 8666).

The first purpose of me ROD guidance is tostandardize the format of the Proposed Plan,ROD, ROD Amendments, and Explanation ofSignificant Differences (ESDs). Standardizedformats for these documents are necessarybecause the remedies selected in the Superfundprogram will be reviewed by the public on bothnational and local levels. Standardizing thesedecision documents should:

• Provide consistency among Regions, withrespect to the organization and content of

decision documents, as well as providingnational consistency

• Ensure that all statutory and regulatorydocumentation requirements are met

• Promote clear and logical presentations ofrationales for remedy selection decisionsbased on site-specific information andsupporting analysis.

In addition to the emphasis on providing astandard format to document remedial actiondecisions, this guidance specifies the roles andresponsibilities of EPA, the States, and otherFederal agencies in developing and issuingSuperfund decision documents. The emphasison a larger state role in the remedial process iscontained in CERCLA section 121(f)(l), whichprovides "for substantial and meaningfulinvolvement of each State in the initiation,development, and selection of remedial responseactions to be undertaken in that State." Inaddition, because Executive Order 12580("Superfund Implementation." January 23,1987)delegates authority for certain CERCLAactivities to other Federal agencies, this guidancealso discusses the roles and responsibilities ofthese other agencies (e.g., the Departments ofDefense, Energy, and the Interior) in theremedial process.

Finally, this guidance addresses the statutoryrequirement in CERCLA sections 117(b) and (d)to document significant changes made during theremedy selection process. For example, whensignificant changes are made to the ProposedPlan after its publication, certain activitiesshould be undertaken to document thesechanges. In the event that significant changesare made to the selected remedy after the RODis signed, specific documentation and publicparticipation requirements should be met.

January 16, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Cite1

Procedures to fulfill these requirements areoutlined in this guidance.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE SUPERFUNDREMEDIAL PROCESS

This section describes the relationshipbetween ths decision documents addressed inthis guidance and the overall Superfund remedialresponse process (see Highlight 1).

1.2.1 The Pre-Remedial Stage

The Pre-Rcmedial Stage encompasses theidentification, investigation, and listing of a siteon the National Priorities List (NPL). The pre-remedial stage consists of a three-part processfor determining whether hazards at a site justifyperforming a CERCLA remedial action orwhether the site can be cleaned up under someauthority other thai CERCLA. This processbegins with a Preliminary Assessment (PA),during which existing" information on the site isreviewed. If the results of the PA indicate thatfurther investigation is warranted, either aScreening Site Investigation (SSI) or a listingSite Investigation (LSI) is conducted. An LSIis performed to gather sufficient information to"score" the site using the Hazard RankingSystem (HRS). The HRS is a site evaluationmethodology that EPA uses to estimate therelative hazards posed by different sites. Thosesites that score above the HRS cut-off score of28.5 are eligible to be placed on the NPL.

1*2.2 Determination of Lead and SupportAgencies

After a site is placed on the NPL,interagency negotiations are initiated todetermine which agency should act as the LeadAgency in the remedial process and which as theSupport Agency. These negotiations includeEPA, States, and other Federal agencies. Thelead agency, which is represented by theRemedial Project Manager (RPM), has theprimary responsibility for coordinating aresponse action. Either EPA, a stateenvironmental agency, or another Federal

^^0

agency (e.g., the Department SPDefenstcases of hazardous waste sites onTBilitary bcan serve as the lesd agency. TS lead agRPM is responsible for overseeing all techrenforcement, and rbancial aspects of a remresponse.

The support agency plays a reviewconcurrence role throughout the rem:process. When EPA or another Federal agacts as the lead agency, the state in whicisite is located usually serves as the su[agency. When the State is the lead agency.;usually serves as the support agency.

When EPA and a State are involve^remedial activities, the lead and support agerare identified in a Superfimd Memorandur,Agreement (SMOA), a Cooperative Agreerror a State Superfund Contract (SSC).Superfimd Memorandum of Agreementgeneral agreement that specifies the natureextent of interaction between EPA and the .for one or more sites. A CoopersAgreement is a site-specific agreementestablishes Federal and slate responsibilitiesa specific CERCLA response action.4 A SSuperfimd Contract is an agreementdocuments any required cost sharesassurances necessary from a State but doesinvolve the disbursement of Federal monies

A Federal agency other than EPA couldassume the roles and responsibilities of theagency. These responsibilities incicoordinating and communicating with EPAthe State in their shared role as support agencThe division of authority and responsibbetween the Federal agency as lead andsupport agencies, particularly in preparingProposed Plan and the ROD, should be speciin an Icteragency Agreement (IAG). 'agreement should be reacted by consideringprocess and activities outlined in this guidaithe CERCLA requirements, and the N'Federal agencies conducting response actionsexpected to comply with this and other Ageguidance, as specified in CERCLA section 1


Highlight 1: The Remedial Process

• Preliminary Assessment• Site Investigation• HRS Evaluation»NPL Listing

Preliminary identification of ste hazardsand evaluation of the need for actionunder Suportund remedial program

Remedial Inv—tigatlon/Fmislbilny Study

• Scoping• Site Charac-

terization• Baseline Risk

Assessment• Treatabllity

Studies

- Development andScreening ofArtBmatives

• Detailed Anaiysisof Alternatives

Gather information sufficient to supportan informed risk management decisionregarding which remedy appears to bethe most appropriate for a givan site

£Selection of flonrody

Make initial identification of preferredalternative based upon preliminarybalancing of trade-offs among alterna-tives using the nine criteria

Identification of PreferredAttam alive

iPROPOSED PLAN Present preferred alternative;

Public Comment Minimun 30 day public comment periodheld on the Proposed Plar?, RI/FS, andother contents of the AdministrativeRecord File

Remedy Selection

IMake final determination on remedy

RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) Certifiy that the remedy complies withCERCLA. outline the technical goalsof the remedy, provide backgroundinformation on the site, summarizethe analysis of alternatives, and explainthe rationale for the remedy selected

Post-BCD

Remedial DesignRemedial ActionOperation and MaintenanceDeletion from NPL

Design and construct remedy utilizinginformation contained in the ROD andother relevant documents

'This period will be extended an aditional 30 days upon timely request (see 55 FR 8770).

1.2.3 Potentially Responsible Parties

Under CERCLA section 104, an individualor company identified as potentially liable for arelease of hazardous substances into theenvironment, or a Potentially ResponsibleParty (PRP), may also conduct CERCLAresponse actions, if that party is qualified andotherwise capable. For a PRP-preparedresponse action, either EPA or the state is thelead agency for overseeing the PRP's work andfor developing the Proposed Plan and the ROD.PRPs may participate in the remedy selectionprocess by recommending their own preferredalternative to the lead agency in a memorandumaccompanying the Remedial Investigation/Feasibiiitiy Study (RI/FS) Report and bysubmitting comments on the Proposed Plan, aswell as on any other information contained inthe Administrative Record, during the formalpublic comment period that is held before thefinal selection of a remedy for a site.

1.2.4 Hemediai'. Study.

Once a site is listed on the NPL and a leadagency has been identified, the lead agencyperforms a Remedial Investigation andFeasibility Study. During an RVFS, the leadagency gathers information sufficient to supportan informed risk management decision regardingwhich remedy appears to be most appropriatefor a given site or an operable unit within a site.Operable Units (OUs) are discrete parts of anentire response action. An OU can be definedas a certain geographic portion of a site or anenvironmental medium at the site (e.g.,alternative water supply, source controlmeasures, mitigation of contamination in off-siteareas, or ground-water remediation). Operableunits may also be comprehensive but temporaryremedies (e.g.. temporary caps across a site) thatcan provide interim protection of human healthand the environment before final remediation.

Usually, the RI and FS are conductedconcurrently, in an interactive, iterative manner.The data collected during the RI are used to

—(00

develop remedial alternatives in tfi& FS. ancalternatives identified in the FSCSteterminenecessity of treatability studies or the collecof additional data in the RI. In general, thiconsists of:

• Collecting data to characterize site condit

• Determining the nature and extentcontamination at the site or operable uni

• Assessing risks to human health andenvironment

• Conducting treatability tests to evaluatepotential performance and cost oftreatment technologies being consideredthe site.

In characterizing the site, the lead ageiidentifies the source of contamination, potemroutes of migration, and current and poten-human and environmental receptors. 1baseline risk assessment conducted during theidentifies the contaminants of potential conctand uses exposure and toxicily informationdetermine the risks posed by the conditionsthe site to human health and the environmeTreatability studies are bench, pilot, or full-sc;tests of a particular technology on samplesactual site wastes. Such studies are conductedidentify which technologies are suitable iaddressing the waste to be treated.

The FS involves the identification adetailed evaluation of potential remed'alternatives. This process begins with tformulation of viable alternatives, whhinvolves defining remedial action objectivegeneral response actions, volumes or areamedia to be addressed, and potentially applicafctechnologies. The alternatives should '•screened down, as appropriate, to a reasonabnumber. The remaining alternatives shouundergo a detailed analysis using the nilevaluation criteria. (For a discussion of thanalysis, see Chapter 6.) The detailed analysprofiles individual alternatives against thcriteria and compares them with each other r


gauge their relative performance against eachfactor. Each alternative, with the exception ofthe required no action alternative, is designedand continually refined to ensure that it wilt beprotective of human health and the environmentand that it will comply with its respectiveApplicable or Relevant and AppropriateRequirements (ARARs).6

1.2.5 Preferred Alternative

The lead agency identifies a PreferredAlternative before holding a formal publiccomment period on the proposed cleanup for asite. The detailed analysis provides the lead andsupport agencies with sufficient information toidentify a preferred alternative. The preferredalternative is identified as the protective, ARAR-compliant remediation approach that is judged toprovide the best balance of tradeoffs with respectto the five primary balancing criteria and is cost-effective. This. evaluation should also considerstate (i.e., support agency) and communityacceptance of.. each- alternative, when thatinformation—is available. The preferredalternative and, ultimately, the selected remedyshould be chosen considering the Superfundprogram's "expectations." These are presentedin Highlight 2.

1.2.6 Proposed Plan

The preferred alternative for a site ispresented to me public in a Proposed Plan.The Proposed Plan briefly summarizes all of thealternatives studied in the detailed analysis phaseof the RI/FS, highlighting the key factors thatled to identifying the preferred alternative. TheProposed Plan, as well as the RI/FS and theother information, is made available for publiccomment in the Administrative Record.

1.2.7 Record of Decision

Following receipt of public comments andany final comments from the support agency, aremedy is selected and documented in a ROD.The ROD. a stand-alone document, which

documents the remedial action plan for a site oroperable unit. serves three basic functions:

• It certifies that the remedy selection processwas carried out in accordance with CERCLAand, to the extent practicable, with the NCP

• It describes the technical parameters of theremedy, specifying the treatment,engineering, and institutional components, aswell as remediation goals

• It provides the public with a consolidatedsource of information about the site and thechosen remedy, including the rationalebehind the selection.

1.2.S Remedial Design

The ROD provides the framework for thetransition into Remedial Design (RD), the nextphase of the remedial process. RD is anengineering phase during which technicaldrawings and specifications are developed forthe subsequent Remedial Action. Thesespecifications are based upon the detaileddescription of the remedy and the cleanupcriteria provided in the ROD.

1.2.9 Remedial Action

After completion of the RD, the RemedialAction (RA) begins. During RD, the actualconstruction of the remedy or implementationphase of site cleanup occurs. When all phasesof remedial activity at a site have beencompleted and no further remedial action iswarranted, the site can be deleted from the NPL.Completed cleanup results should be comparedwith the terms in the ROD to determine whetherremediation goals have been fulfilled so that thesite can be deleted from the NPL.


HighiSght 2: Goal and Expectations for Superfuad Remedial Actions

The following goal and expectations guide the decision maker ia detennumsg &e method of protection (orcombination of mcfeods) most appropriate for « particular site or operable imit.

• The national god of the remedy selection process is to select remedies thst protect faimum health sad theenviromocat, (feat maussssn protection over dine, sssd that mmiwige untreated waste.

• EPA expects to use treatment to address the principal threats posed by a sate, wherever practictble. Principalthreats for which trcaSQaeat is moot likely to be appropriate is&sluds liquids, areas costaoimted with high .ooocentnaons of toxic compounds, and highly mobile materials (NCP, 55 PR 8702).

• EPA expects to use engineering coaitrola, such as contaiameat, for waste that poaes a relatively lew long-tens •threat or where treatment is uapracricable. Specific situations that may limit the use of treatroeat include siteswith:

Wastes in which me contanrinaaSs are near health-based levels or that are substantially immobile or canotherwise be reliably contained over loog periods

Wastes that are technically difficult to treat, such as mixed wastes of widely varying composition or wastesdispersed over extraordinarily large sites, such as muracipal landfills or musing sites* where the scope of th>problem treatment is impracticable

Wastes with characteristics lhat a treatment-based remedy would increase overall risk to human health and tenvironment because of risks posed to workers, the community, or me environment during implementation.

• • EPA'expects to use a combination of methods, as appropriate, to achieve protection of human health and theenvironment. In appropriate site situaJaons, (regtmeot of the prmcipal threats posed by a site, with priority placetoa treariflg waste that is liquid, highly toxic or highly mobile, will be combined with engineering controls (such acontammeat) and insatuticnal controls) as appropriate, for creaanest residuals and untreated waste.

• EPA expects to use institutional controls such as water use and deed restrictions to supplement engineering centreas appropriate for short- and long-term management or to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous substances,pollutants, or contaminants. Institutional controls may be used during me conduct of the RI/FS and impiementati'of the remedial action and, where necessary, as a compoaeiat of the completed remedy. The use of institutionalcontrols shall not substitute for active response measures (e.g., treatment and/or containment of source material,restoration of ground waters to their beneficial uses) as the sole remedy unless such active measures are determinenot to be practicable, based on the balancing of trade-offs among alternatives that is conducted during the sclectioof remedy.

• EPA expects to consider using innovative technology when such technology offers the potential for comparable orsuperior treatment performance or implementabllity, fewer or lesser adverse impacts than other availableapproaches, or lower costs for similar levels of performance than more demoffistrated technologies.

• EPA expects to return usable ground waters to their beneficial uses wherever practicable, withia a time frame thaiis reasonable given me particular circumstances of the site. When restoration of ground water to beneficial uses i.not practicable, EPA expects to prevent farther migration of the plume, prevent exposure to the contaminatedground water, and evaluate further risk reduction.


SBSS3

13 OUTLINE OF THIS GUIDANCE

Although this guidance addresses only thepreparation of Superfimd decision documents,other guidance documents that address otherstages of the remedial process are also available.Because preparation of the Proposed Plan andROD relies to a great extent on the. informationcollected and analyzed during the RI/FS process,the Guidance for Conducting RemedialInvestigations and Feasibility Studies widerCERCLA (Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse [OSWER] Directive 9355.3-01.October 1988) is of particular importance. TheROD Guidance and RI/FS Guidance areinterrelated documents that should be used whenconducting remedial actions pursuant toCERCLA sections 104, 106, 120, and 122.Many portions of Proposed Plans and RODs willsummarize information generated during theRI/FS. Appendix E of this guidance listsadditional sources of information on the remedyselection process and other stages of theremedial process.

Chapters 2 through 9 address the followingdifferent aspects of the Superfimd remedyselection process that require specificdocumentation:

• Chapter 2 presents the purpose of and thestatutory requirements for the ProposedPlan and provides guidelines for issuing thePlan.

• Chapter 3 summarizes the roles andresponsibilities of lead and support agenciesin developing the Proposed Plan.

• Chapter 4 summarizes requirements for thenewspaper notification that announces theavailability of the Proposed Plan anddiscusses the public comment period.

• Chapter 5 describes the general frameworkfor categorizing minor and significantchanges made to the preferred alternativebefore issuance of the ROD and discusses

documentation and public informationactivities mat may be necessary.

• Chapter 6 presents the standard format forthe ROD and discusses key elements to beincluded in each section.

• Chapter 7 summarizes the roles andresponsibilities of lead and support agenciesin developing the ROD.

• Chapter 8 discusses the standards andprocedures to follow when post-RODchanges occur.

• Chapter 9 presents the special ROD formatsfor three types of remedial action decisions:no action, interim action, and contingencyremedy decisions.

• Appendix A presents a basic description ofa hypothetical site, on which severalexamples in the text and Appendix B arebased.

• Appendix B is a sample Proposed Planbased on the hypothetical site outlined inAppendix A.

• Appendix C contains worksheets that can beused in evaluating and comparing remedialalternatives.

• Appendix D presents helpful hints forsubmitting decision document toHeadquarters.

• Appendix E lists additional sources ofinformation on the remedy selection processand other stages of the remedial process.


c^00

1. This guidance replaces the Februaiy 27, 1985, memorandum: "Preparation of Decision E?QeumcntsApproving Fund-Financed and Potentially Responsible Party Remedial Actions under CERCLA" anC&e Gwdaon Preparing Supsrfund Decision Documents, Interim Final, June 1989.

2. References made to CERCLA throughout this document should be mt-rprctsd as meaning CERCLA, as amenby SARA.

3. "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, • Final Rule, (55 FR 8666), March 8,19

4. With a CA, EPA establishes an account to enable the State to use Trust Fund monies to finance response actio

5. Because a State may be either the lead agency or the support agency for most remedial activities, this guidaioften makes general reference to "lead* and "support" agency responsibilities, rather than EPA or sfcresponsibilities. Federal agencies (other than EPA) have lead responsibility at sites under their jurisdictichowever, EPA has final authority regarding remedy selection at such sites.

6. ARARs include any Federal or state standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations that are determined tolegally applicable or relevant and appropriate to a CERCLA site or action. These requirements may incluregulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic Substances ContiAct (TSCA). the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Clean Water Act (CWA). and other Federal environmeastatutes or state laws.._ Applicablereqmregiepts are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and othsubstantive env-iroamental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or state 1;that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or oti:circumstance found at a CERCLA site. Relevantand appropriate requirements are requirements that, while c"applicable" to circumstances at a particular CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently similarthose encountered at the site that their use is well suited to the particular site. Additional guidance on ARARsprovided in the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Parts I and II (OSWER Directive 9234.1-CAugust 1988. and 9234.1-02, July 1989).


2.0 THE PROPOSED PLAN

This chapter presents the purpose of theProposed Plan and the statutory requirements forissuing the Plan pursuant to CERCLA sections104, 106, 120, and 122. In addition, thischapter provides a suggested outline and formatfor writing the Proposed Plan.1

2.1 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PLAN

The purpose of the Proposed Plan is tofacilitate public participation in the remedyselection process by:

• Identifying the preferred alternative for aremedial action at a site or operable unit andexplaining the reasons for the preference

• Describing other remedial options that wereconsidered in detail in the RI/FS Report

• • Soliciting public review and comment on allof the alternatives described

• Providing information on how the public canbe involved in the remedy selection process.

The Proposed Plan is a public participationdocument and is expected to be widely read.The Proposed Plan, therefore, should be writtenin a clear and concise manner using non-technical language. In addition, the ProposedPlan should direct the public to the RI/FS Reportas the primary source of detailed information onthe remedial alternatives analyzed, as well asother site-specific information.

The Proposed Plan should present the leadagency's preliminary recommendationconcerning how best to undertake a cleanupaction at the site. The Proposed Plan shouldalso make clear that the lead agency has"identified" a preferred alternative based onavailable information, but has not "selected" aremedy to be implemented. The Proposed Plansupports only preliminary decisions for a site

and should include observations and tentativerecommendations. The Proposed Plan shouldnot make definitive findings or declarativestatements that would be difficult to reviselater.

In emphasizing that the preferred alternativeis only an initial recommendation, the ProposedPlan should clearly state that changes to thepreferred alternative, or a change from thepreferred alternative to another alternative, maybe made if public comments or additional dataindicate that such a change would result in amore appropriate solution. The final decisionregarding the selected remedy should bedocumented in the ROD after the lead agencyconsidered all comments from both the supportagency and the public. An important function ofthe Proposed Plan is to solicit public commenton all of me alternatives considered in thedetailed analysis phase of the RI/FS because thelead and support agencies may select a remedyother than the preferred alternative.

The three separate statutory requirements inCERCLA that provide the basic framework inthe Proposed Plan and the process fordeveloping this document are CERCLA sections113(k)(2)(B), 117(a), and l21(f)(l)(G).

Section 113(k)(2)(B) establishes theminimum procedures for public involvement inselecting a response action. The specificprocedures for the Proposed Plan are to providea:

• Notice to potentially affected persons andthe public, which shall be accompanied by abrief analysis of the [proposed]2 plan andalternative plans that were considered

• Reasonable opportunity to comment andprovide information regarding the [proposed]plan.


Section 117(a) establishes the baseline publicparticipationrequirements forremedial activities.The subsections relating to the Proposed Planrequire that the lead agency:

• (1) Publish a notice and brief analysis of theproposed plan and make the plan available tothe public

• (2) Provide a reasonable opportunity forsubmission of written and oral commentsand an opportunity for a public meeting at ornear me facility at issue regarding theproposed plan and regarding any proposedfiadings under section 121(d)(4) (relating tocleanup standards) [e.g., waivers]. The[lead agency] shall keep a transcript of themeeting and make such transcript availableto the public

• [Include in] the notice and analysis publishedunder paragraph (1) ... sufficient information... as may be necessary to provide areasonable_explanation of the proposed planand alternative proposals considered [in theRI/FS Report].

Section 121fn(rUG^ specifies the minimuminvolvement EPA should afford the state in theremedial decision process. The requirementsspecific to the Proposed Plan are to provide:

• [a] Notice to the State and an opportunity tocomment on the proposed plan for remedialaction as well as on alternative plans underconsideration. The [EPA's] proposeddecision regarding the selection of remedialaction shall be accompanied by a response tothe comments submitted by the Stateincluding an explanation regarding anydecision on compliance with promulgatedState standards. A copy of such responseshall also be provided to the State.

2.2 WRITING THE PROPOSED PLAN

The Proposed Plan summarizes essentialinformation from the RI/FS Report. At aminimum, the Plan should:

c ie<?0

• Summarize the environmental^nditxon.me site as determined during t6??'PJ

0• Describe the remedial alternatives evalur

in sufficient detail to provide a reasonsexplanation of each alternative

• Identify the lead agency's preferalternative

• Provide a general summary of the suppagency comments, if available (e.concurrence, nonconcurrence, orcomments at present time), and the 1'agency's response to the comments

• Provide a brief analysis that supportspreferred alternative, discussed in termsthe nine evaluation criteria

• Identify and provide a summary explanatiof any proposed waivers to the ARARsCERCLA section 121(d)(4).

Highlight 3 provides a recommended outiof the Proposed Plan. This outline contaelements that are both specifically requiredCERCLA and others that are recommended rinclusion. Variations may be madeappropriate.

Section 2.3 of this guidance provides mespecific guidance on the key elements of tPlan, and Section 2.4 discusses format.sample Proposed Plan for a hypotheticSuperftmd site (described in Appendix A)presented in Appendix B.


Highlight 3: Outline for the Proposed Plan

Introduction

• Provide site name and location.• Identify lead and support agencies.• Introduce document's purpose, which is to;

- Fulfill requirements of CERCLA section U7(a)- Describe alternatives analyzed- Identify preferred alternative and explain rationale for preference- Serve as companion to the RI/FS Report and administrative record file- Solicit public involvement in selection of a remedy.

• Stress importance of public input on aU of the alternatives.

Site Background

• Provide brief overview of site.• Describe site history.

Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action

• Describe scope of problem that the action will address.• Describe role of action within site strategy.•• --Identify how action addresses principal threat(s) and/or low level threats.

Summary of Site Risks

• Provide overview of baseline risk assessment, by describing the:- Contaminated media- Contaminant(s) of potential concern- Baseline exposure scenarios (e.g., routes of exposure, current and future land-use

scenarios)- Current and potential site risks (including both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic threats).

• Discuss how current risks compare with remediation goals.

• Discuss environmental risk(s), as appropriate.

Summary of Alternatives

• Provide narrative description of alternatives evaluated in detailed analysis of FS, includingengineering components, treatment components, institutional controls, estimated present-worthcost, estimated construction and operation and maintenance costs, quantities of waste,implementation time, and the major ARARs associated with the altemative(s).

(Continued on next page)


10CM0000

Highlight 3 (continued)

Evalsiaticn of Alternatives and The Preferred Alternative

• Identify the preferred alternative.• Introduce the Dine evaluation criteria and discuss how they are utilized to analyze cleanup options.• Provide the rationale for the -preferred alternative by profiling it against the nine criteria and

highilghtmg how it compares with the other alternatives' major advantages and disadvantages.Sta^/gupport agency and community acceptance should be addressed to the extent adequateinformation is available at the time.

• Discuss the lead age-.cy's belief that the preferred alternative would satisfy the statutory findings,including ths preference for treatmcat as a principal element.

• Include the support agency's recommendation that the alternative meets the statutory findingswhen the support agency concurs with the preferred alternative.

Community Participation*

• Provide nodce of public comment period, encouraging written comments.• Note time and place for a public meeting(s) (if they have been scheduled) or offer opportunity

for meeting.• Identify the location of the Administrative Record and information repositories.

* Community includes the general public and PRPs.


23 SECTTON-BY-SECTIONDESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSEDPLAN

2.3.1 Introduction

This introductory section should include thesite name and location, and identify the lead andsupport agencies for the remedial action. Theintroduction should state that the Proposed Planis a document that the lead agency is required toissue to fulfill CERCLA section 117(a).

The public should be informed of thefunction of the Proposed Plan in the remedyselection process, specifically, that its purposesare to:

• Identify the preferred alternative forremedial action at a site or operable unit andexplain the reasons for me preference

• Describe the other remedial options.consideredjn detail in the RI/FS Report

• Solicit public review of and comment on allof the alternatives described

• Provide information on how the public canbe involved in the remedy selection process.

A clear statement should be made that theProposed Plan highlights key information fromthe RI/FS Report but is not a substitute for thatdocument. The Plan should refer the reader tothe RI/FS Report and Administrative Record asmore complete sources of information regardingthe remedial action.3 The first section of theProposed Plan should stress that public inputon all alternatives, and on the informationthat supports the alternatives, is an importantcontribution to the remedy selection process.The public should be encouraged to submitcomments and should be informed that theircomments can influence the lead agency*spreference. The point should be made that thefinal remedial action plan, as presented in theROD, could differ from the preferredalternative, depending upon new information or

arguments the lead agency may consider as aresult of public comments.

2.3.2 Site Background

The site background should Include a sitemap and a brief description of the site, includingthe history of waste generation or disposal thathas taken place mere, the major contaminant(s)of concern, me contaminated media, and theextent of contamination.

233 Scope and Role of Operable Unit orResponse Action

This section of the Proposed Plan shouldsummarize the lead agency*s overall strategy forremediating the site and describe how the actionbeing considered in the Proposed Plan fits intothat overall strategy.

If the response is being carried out inoperable units, the purpose of each operable unitand their sequence should be described. Forexample, the following language could beincluded in this section: "This is the second ofthree planned operable units for the site. Thefirst operable unit provided the community withan alternate water supply to prevent ingestion ofcontaminated ground water. This secondoperable unit addresses remediatlon of thesource materials (e.g., lagoon contents,contaminated soil). The third and final operableunit will address the contaminated groundwater."

As the preceding example illustrates, theProposed Plan's description of the overall sitestrategy and the function of the proposedresponse action should indicate how and throughwhat action or series of actions those portions ofthe site requiring remediation will be addressed,including the principal threats (if any).

2.3.4 Summary of Site Risks

This section of the Proposed Plan shouldsummarize the extent of contamination at the siteand the risks posed to human health and me


environment using information developed duringthe RI. The summary of site risks shouldinclude key findings made in the baseline riskassessment conducted as part of me RI. Thisdiscussion should:

» Identify contaminated media

• Identify contaminants) of concern

» Describe exposure pathways (e.g., routes ofexposure - ground water, surface water, air,and soil)

• Describe the potentially exposed popula-tion(s).

The description of site risks should not relysolely on standard numeric risk representations(such as cancer risks of 10"3 or a hazard quotientvalue of 22). These risk numbers should beaccompanied by a discussion that explains, forexample, that a cancer risk level of 10"3 meansthat at a reasonable maximum exposure anindividual-has a 1 in 1,000 chance of developingcancer as a result of site-related exposure to acarcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under thespecific exposure conditions at the site.Similarly, for noncarcinogenic effects, thediscussion of the hazard quotient and hazardindex should state that a hazard quotient (theratio of the existing level of exposure to anacceptable level) greater than 1.0 indicates thatthe exposure level exceeds the protective levelfor the particular contaminant of concern.

In addition, for proposed remedies otherthan "no action," this section of the ProposedPlan should conclude with a statement similarto Highlight 4.

23.5 Summary of Alternatives

The Summary of Alternatives section shouldbriefly narrate the alternatives studied in thedetailed analysis phase of the RI/FS Report.This description should specify the treatmenttechnology (ies), engineering controls.institutional controls, quantities of waste

C3Highlight 4: Required Rish^Language for Proposed Remedy's

Actual or threatened releases ofhazardous substances from this site, ifnot addressed by the preferredalternative or one of me other activemeasures considered, may present acurrent or potential threat to publichealth, welfare, or the environment.

handled, implementation requirements, estimaticonstruction and operation and maintenanLcosts, and estimated implementation time franassociated with each remedy.

These descriptions also should incorporathe major ARARs associated with each optio,For example, source control remedies whicinvolve placement or site closure should discuRCRA land disposal restrictions (LDRs) aiRCRA Subtitle C or D closure standardrespectively. The sample Proposed PlanAppendix B of this guidance provides examphof the level of detail for these discussions.

23.6 The Evaluation of Alternatives

This section should begin by identifying trpreferred alternative. Next, the nine enterused to evaluate the alternatives in the detailsanalysis in the FS should be presented.

The nine criteria fall into three groupthreshold criteria, primary balancing criteriand modifying criteria. The threshold critermust be met for an alternative to be eligible ftselection. The primary balancing criteria a:used to weigh major trade-offs amoralternatives. Generally, die modifying criterare taken into account ate public commentreceived on the Proposed Plan. Highlightpresents information on the organization of Acriteria and the major points that should 1:addressed under each criterion. Additional


Highlights: The Nine Remedial Evaluation Criteria

0THRESHOLD CRITERIA

©

|0vral( Profcdon ofHuman health •ndlh« Environment

• Hour Altematfv Provid—Hum«i H—lth nutEnvlrcnmmtal Protection

• Comptene* with Chonilol Sp«ctflc ARAfl*• Compluine* with Loc«tton»Sp«effle ARAR«• Compftene* wflh Actfon.Sp»cffic ARAR*• CompCanc* with Othw Cri fri«, Advtoori—, •nd

Guide nc—(TBC»)

PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA

®

1 khflnftud* of RwId&MlRf«k

AttoquicyndR»'l«bi!ltyot Control*

• Tr—tmftt Prof—Uwd •nd RktorialBTr—fd

• Amount of HCZTOOUSM«tfl«la D«stroyd orTrwtod

• Dfr** of ExpectedReductiGrr in Toxicfty,Mobility, •nd Volum*

• D*Sr— to WhJeh Tr—t-ffwit t« lrr«vr«Jbfa

• Typ« •nd Quantity ofR—{du«l« RwiulninoAfter TnMtmMit

•Protection ofComrnunJty DuringRfrMdIiJ Action*

> Protecbon of WorkwDuring RMMdtilAetionB

' Envirofmmitel Impacts

Timo Until FI*rr»d!*|Action Objeetlw T«AehEawd

• Ability to Conttruct •nd •Opwte ttr Technology

•RritabflltyofthBTechnology

• Ea—of UndMfldngAdditional R«m*dl«lActfonc, if NiKwcary

• Ability to Monitor Eff»ctlvMM—af R«ntedy

• Ability to Obtain Approv-al* from OthT AgwicJon

• Coordination with OttwAg«ncl—

• Amilibfllty of Off-SiteTr—tncnti Stong*, •ndOixpo—1 S«rvic»« •ndC«p«btlity

• AvIlablIltyofttocassJryEqulDnwrit •ndSp*cJ«lif

• AvIfBbfllty of ProfMctfvTftchnologi—

> Estimated GipflalCoabi

Etinuited Oowtfon•nd Milnt«mc«Co»t»

Estimated PrwontWorth Co»t

®MODIFYING CRITERIA1

®

• F—tunr of 1h* AJtwnativth» Suite Supporf

• F—tuf of th« AltwnativAbout Which the Sbite rui<R—rvtion*

• Elfrmts of th»A>m«nidw th» SoiteStrongly Oppow

F—lurM of the Alterrreiv th»Community Support*

FMtur— of th* AltenutivAbout Which the Communitynw R»—rvatlons

Elfn«nt« of the Altenutiv th»Community Strongly Oppcwi

17h^^se critBfia afo assassed foltowing comniflnt on the Rl/FS Roport and th Proposed Ptan.

information on the nine criteria and detailedanalysis of alternatives are provided in the NCPand the Guidance for Conducting RemedialInvestigations and Feasibility Studies underCERCLA (OSWER Directive 9355.3-01.October 1988).

The Proposed Plan uses the nine criteria toprofile the performance of die preferredalternative, explaining the rationale for thepreference by briefly comparing the preferredalternative with the other alternatives under each.criterion. For example, under the long-termeffectiveness and permanence criterion, thequantity of residuals the preferred alternativeleaves on site and the reliability of the long-termmanagement controls used should be stated andcompared with the other alternatives. Highlights5 and 6 present additional information on themajor points to be addressed under eachcriterion.

The discussion 'In this section of theProposed Plan should develop the initialrationale for 't5e preferred alternative; however,it need not provide a comprehensive analysis ofeach alternative in relation to each of the ninecriteria, nor should it make conclusive,binding statements about an alternative. Fora more detailed explanation, the reader of theProposed Plan should be directed to thecomparative analysis contained in the RI/FS.Appendix C includes some sample worksheetsthat could be used during the preliminary stagesin preparing this section of the Proposed Plan.The conclusion of this section of the ProposedPlan should include a summary by the leadAgency. The summary should state that basedon information currently available, the leadagency believes the preferred alternativeprovides the best balance of trade-ofTs amongthe other alternatives with respect to theevaluation criteria. This section should includea statement summarizing the support agency'sconcurrence or nonconcurrence with thepreferred alternative and should note that thelead agency expects the preferred alternative tosatisfy the statutory requirements in CERCLAsection 121(b) to:

• Be protective of human healfi^and tenvironment

• Comply with ARARs (or Justify a waiver

• Be cost-effective

• Utilize permanent solutions and alternati'treatment technologies or resource recove]technologies to the maximum extepracticable

• Satisfy the statutory preference for treatme;as a principal element, or justify not meetirthe preference.

2,3.7 Community Participation

The public should be informed of thfollowing:

• Dates of me public comment period (e.g-March 1 through 30)

• Date, time(s). and locations) of the publimeeting(s) held pursuant to CERCLA sectio117(a) (and an offer to hold a meeting upoirequest if one has not been scheduled)

• Location of information repositories and thiAdministrative Record and the hours oavailability

• Names, phone numbers, and addresses of thtlead and support agency personnel who wilreceive comments or who can supphadditional information.


Highlight 6: Hints for Preparing the Nine Criteria Analysis

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

In every FS, a "no action" alternative is developed as a baseline for comparative analysispurposes. In cases where the no action alternative is found not to meet this criterion, it can beruled out for further consideration and, therefore, need not be discussed further in the criteriaanalysis.

Compliance with ARARs

For an alternative to pass the screening process in the RI/FS and thus become eligible forselection, it must comply with its ARARs or a waiver should be identified and the justificationprovided for invoking it. An alternative that cannot comply with ARARs, or for which a waivercannot be justified, should be eliminated from consideration or further discussion as a potentialalternative in the Proposed Plan or ROD.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

In addressmg the long-term effectiveness and permanence of an alternative, the term "long-termeffectiveness" should be viewed along a continuum (i.e., an alternative can offer a greater orlesser degree of long-term effectiveness). Alternatives that are more effective in the long-termare more permanent; however, the term "permanent" should not be used in describing thealternatives. Instead, an alternative should be described only in terms of "long-termeffectiveness."

Cost

The costs of remedies always should be qualified as estimates.

State/Support Agency Acceptance

Where there are major support agency comments, they should be summarized under the state(i.e., support agency) acceptance criterion. The lead agency's response to those comments alsoshould be summarized here.

Community Acceptance

Because information available on the community acceptance criterion may be limited before thepublic comment period for the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS Report, the Proposed Plan shouldindicate that this factor will be evaluated in the ROD or, if appropriate, the Proposed Plan shouldprovide a preliminary summary based on available information. Proposed Plans should notspeculate on community acceptance of the alternatives.

January 16,1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Cite17

2.4 FOR THE PROPOSEDFORMATSFLAN

There are two basic formats available to thelead agency for preparing the Proposed Plan.The first option is to issue the Proposed Plan ina fact sheet format, similar to the communityrelations fact sheets that traditionally have beenissued by the Superfucd program.

The second option for issuing the ProposedPlan is to prepare an expanded, more detaileddocument mat is similar to a draft ROD, yet lesslengthy and conclusive than a ROD. This latteroption is more of a "stand-alone" documentbecause it relies less on references to the RI/FSand other documents in the AdministrativeRecord than does the more brief format.

Although the fact sheet format is expected tosuffice for most Proposed Plans, specific sitecircumstances (e^;., complexity, publiccontroversy) may call for using the expandedformat. Regardless of me format chosen, theProposed,Plan should be written .so that theinformation can be readily understood by thegeneral public. The major components of theProposed Plan and effective ways in which theycan be summarized is outlined in A Guide toDeveloping Superftmd Proposed Plans (OSWERDirective 9335.3-02FS-2, May 1990). After theProposed Plan is issued, a copy should be sentto EPA Headquarters as soon as possible.Appendix D of this Guidance, describes theprocess for preparing and submitting theProposed Plan to Headquarters. Sections 2.4.1and 2.4.2 summarize the advantages anddisadvantages associated with the two alternativeformats for the Proposed Plan.

2.4.1 Fact Sheet Format

EPA and the States currently distribute factsheets as part of the community relationsactivities for a site. Preparing the ProposedPlan in a fact sheet format would fulfill thestatutory requirements related to the Plan.Because the Proposed Plan is issued to fulfill astatutory requirement, the Plan may be

0organized differently or may discuss^mbrmanot traditionally contained in ^mmurelations fact sheets. The advantages^ thesheet format are:

• The fact sheet is an established tool useicommunicate information to the public.

• Fact sheets can be easily distributed topublic.

• Fact sheets are already issued by EPA .States; Superfund personnel are familiar v.fact sheet production and distribution.

• Some Regions and States already use the isheet format to announce a preferalternative.

This format may be inappropriate if the 1(agency determines that the circumstancesremedy selection at a particular site warranlengthier, detailed document that methoroughly describes the site conditions and •remedial alternatives.

2.4.2 Eroanded Format

The lead agency may determine that tdevelopment of a more detailed document is tmost appropriate option for the site or operai-unit. Often, this document may be similar tcdraft ROD. An expanded format for tProposed Plan is more likely to be used whenin-depth discussion of the alternatives in tRI/FS Report is necessary (e.g., if the sitetechnically complex, involves a seriesoperable units, or is the subject of considerafcpublic concern). Documents following :expanded format should include the informaticspecified in Highlight 3, but in greater detaThe advantages of the expanded format are:

• A document with an expanded format c:provide an in-depth discussion of the Ie;and support agencies' rationale for the initipreference for an alternative.


• The document may later provide a moredirect basis for the remedy selected in theROD.

Disadvantages include:

• A lengthy discussion of the rationale maygive the impression that a remedy hasalready been selected.

• Such a document could unintentionally divertattention from the RI/FS Report.

• Such a document may discourage publicparticipation because of its length and thedegree of detail included regarding thetechnical complexities of the site.

1. Chapter 9 should be consulted when preparing Proposed Plans for ao action, interim action, and contingencyremedy decisions.

2. [ ] denotes paraphrase.

3. Subpart I of the revised National Contingency Plan and the Interim Guidance on Administrative Records forSelection of CERCLA Response Actions (OSWER Directive 9833.3A, March 1989) provides detailedinformation on developing, maintaining, and providing access to the Administrative Record for the selection ofthe CERCLA response action.


3.0 THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPOSED PLAN

3.1 OVERVIEW

This chapter summarizes the roles andresponsibilities of the lead and support agenciesin developing the Proposed Plan. Agreement onthe viable alternatives for a site or operable unitis critical to the remedy selection process.Therefore, personnel in the lead and supportagencies should begin discussions on thealternatives analyzed in the FS as early aspossible. As the RI/FS progresses, discussionsbetween the lead and support agencies shouldbegin to focus on identifying a preferredalternative. These early discussions should helpprevent delays in the later stages of the remedyselection process.

If PRPs coaduct the RI/FS. the lead agencyshould be informed of the alternatives developedand screenedy-before-the detailed analysis. Theremainmg'aitematives that are evaluated in detailrepresent the waste management options thatconstitute the basis for selecting a responseaction. Early discussions on alternativesdevelopment should help prevent delays in thelater stages of the remedial process. The leadagency should ensure that the PRPs and allsupport agencies are well informed of siteactivities by regularly updating theAdministrative Record File.1

The general steps in preparing the ProposedPlan for public comment are summarized inHighlight 7. The sequence in which these stepsare taken may vary among Regions and States.

The lead agency should begin drafting theProposed Plan upon completion of the RI/FSReport. If a PRP prepares the RI/FS, then theProposed Plan should be drafted by the leadagency after the lead agency approves theRI/FS. The RI/FS Report should be sent to thesupport agency as soon as the Report isavailable, but no later than when the draft

Proposed Plan is transmitted to the supportagency for review and comment.

A preferred alternative is identifiedtentatively on the basis of the RI/FS Report andongoing discussions between the lead andsupport agencies. To augment the regular flowof information to management, a formal briefingon the RI/FS and me preferred alternative shouldbe made to management at this time. After thismeeting, a draft Proposed Plan is written andsubmitted to the support agency and lead agencymanagement for review and comment. Otherintra-agency program offices should completetheir review of the RI/FS Report during thisperiod, if they have not already done so.

The lead agency should prepare the finalProposed Plan based on the comments from thesupport agency and the results of the internalprogram and management review process. Thisfinal version should include either a summary ofthe support agency's agreement with the Plan orits dissenting comments. If the state is the leadagency and EPA does not concur with theProposed Plan, then EPA could assume leadresponsibility for the Proposed Plan if aresolution cannot be reached (see Section 3.3 formore details). Finally, the notice announcingthe availability of the RI/FS Report and theProposed Plan should be published in a majornewspaper, and both documents should be madeavailable to the public for comment.

3.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OFTHE LEAD AGENCY AND SUPPORTAGENCY

For the remedy selection process to besuccessful, lead and support agencies shouldinteract throughout the entire RI/FS andProposed Plan process. The goal of thiscontinued interaction is to reach agreement on

January 16, 1992 Draft 1({ * * Do Not Quote or Cite20

Note: Shaded boxes denote statutory requirements.

BiamutmBaniniBHBii miimhUHmHmmiiiMual Miami ulLimii i

the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS Report beforethe start of the public comment period.

3.2.1 Designation of Roles andResponsibilities

EPA and the State play specific rolesthroughout the remedial process. Hese rolesshould be defined in the (SMOA), (CA). or(SSC).2 The SMOA and/or CA shoulddesignate the lead and support agency forconducting the RI/FS, developing the ProposedPlan. and drafting the ROD. The SMOA, ifapplicable, should describe the generalprocedures for oversight and interaction betweenEPA and the State. In addition, the SMOAshould contain site-specific agreements betweenEPA and the State, such as which agencies aredesignated to take the roles of the lead andsupport agencies at specific sites. In the absenceof a SMOA, a CA negotiated between EPA andthe State should provide this information foreach specific site. The SSC, in contrast, shouldbe used when the State has no leadresponsibilities for a particular site. or projectand only when documentation of the cost-shareis necessary.

3.2.2 Lead and Support AgencyResponsibilities

The lead agency's responsibilities fordeveloping the Proposed Plan are to:

• Draft the Proposed Plan

• Solicit comments on the Proposed Plan fromthe support agency(ies)3

• Respond in writing to comments from thesupport agency(ies) and include both thecomments and responses in theAdministrative Record File

• Summarize me comments received from thesupport agency(ies) and present the leadagency's response in the Proposed Plan

• Publish a newspaper notice announcingavailability of the RI/FS Report andProposed Plan

• Make the RI/FS Report and Proposed Planavailable to the public in the AdministrativeRecord.

The supportagency*s primary responsibilitiesare to review and comment in a timely fashionon (1) specific RI/FS deliverables, 0) the draftRI/FS Report(s), and (3) the Proposed Plan.The statute requires that this reviewspecifically address the preferred alternative,other remedial alternatives, ARARs, and anyproposed waivers to ARARs.

The role of other program offices withinEPA and state agencies is to provide specificcomments on the alternatives analyzed in theRI/FS Report. EPA and the State shouldestablish the appropriate procedures and timeframes for these mtra-agency reviews. Reviewof the RI/FS Report by other program officesshould be conducted at appropriate times duringthe RI/FS process to ensure that alternatives inthe detailed analysis phase of the RI/FS Reportcomply with other program requirements (e.g.,ARARs). For EPA, this may involve review byprogram offices such as the CWA Program, theRCRA Program, and the TSCA Program. If adraft Proposed Plan is available when the RI/FSReport is ready to be circulated, then the Planshould be circulated at the same time.

3.23 Management Review of the ProposedPlan

The lead and support agencies shoulddetermine the appropriate level of managerialreview for the draft Proposed Plan and, asappropriate, include this in the SMOA, CA, orSSC. The Regional Administrator and StateDirector should be briefed on the RI/FS Reportand the Proposed Plan by their respective staffsbefore these documents are released to thepublic. Most targeted and planned RODs in theCERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) willbe delegated to the Regions for signature. In

January 16, 1992 Draft >t( * * Do Not Quote or Cite22

these cases, if certain criteria are met (per theAnnual Remedy Delegation Report), the Regionmust consult with the appropriate Headquartersmanager. However, the Assistant Administratorof OSWER should be briefed if me ProposedPlan and ROD for a site have not been delegatedto the Regional Administrator. Issuance of theProposed Plan provides the first opportunity forme public to comment on me remedial actionidentified as me preferred alternative by EPAand the State. Tnerefore, the RegionalAdministrator or State Director should bebriefed on the contents of both the RI/FS Reportand Proposed PIsn, as well as on any unresolvedor potentially problematic issues. This isespecially true if a waiver to an ARAR isinvolved or if there are unresolved issuesbetween the staffs of the lead and supportagencies.

3.2.4 Support Agency Comment Period

The support "agency's comment periodpresents an important opportunity for me leadarid supportJigencies to reach agreement on thepreferred alternative. The lead agency shouldseek agreement from the support agency onthe Proposed Plan before making the Planavailable to the public. The comment periodbegins when the support agency receives theProposed Plan from the lead agency and shouldlast at least 5, but no more than 10 workingdays. If a different tune period for review isestablished in the SMOA, CA, or SSC, that timeperiod should be followed. As previouslymentioned, the draft RI/FS Report could begiven to the support agency before the ProposedPlan is ready for review. The review period forthe draft RI/FS Report should last at least 15working days, unless a different time period isestablished in the SMOA, CA. or SSC. or bysome informal arrangement between the lead andsupport agencies.

During the review period, the supportagency should provide written comments on thepreferred alternative and other components ofthe Proposed Plan. These comments shouldindicate one of the following:

0^0

• Agreement, with or without continents.c»»<w3

• Disagreement, with or without%nmen

• No comment on the Plan at this time.

If the support agency does not respond tclead agency's request for comments or preferwithhold its comments until the public comeperiod, a copy of the written requestcomments and a note documenting thatsupport agency did not provide comments shebe placed in the Administrative Record Filethe lead agency before the public comnperiod begins.

The lead agency should respond formallythe support agency's comments that it rece;prior to making the Proposed Plan availablethe public. The lead agency should addressunresolved issues with the support age.through a written explanation sent to the suppagency. The response should addressconcerns relating to the alternatives idectifielthe Proposed Plan, the preferred alternatiARARs, and any proposed ARAR waivtparticularly any that relate to state standards.addition to the formal response (i.e., letter) 5to the support agency, which should addressconcerns raised, comments from the suppagency should also be summarized inProposed Plan under the state/support ageracceptance criterion in the EvaluationAlternatives section. These comments andlead agency's formal response to these commeshould be included, in their entirety, inAdministrative Record.

3.3 PROCEDURES FOR RESOLVITDISPUTES

If a dispute should arise between the Itand support agencies during any phase ofremedial process, the staffs of the lead £support agencies should attempt to resolve th.issues in a timely manner. In the event that stresolution is not possible, the issue(s) shouldbrought promptly to management attention ^resolution.


The lead and support agencies should use thedispute resolution process specified m theSMOA or CA, when these are appropriate. IfFederal agencies are involved, the disputeresolution process specified in the IAG should befollowed. Alternatively, the lead and supportagencies could consider using the disputeresolution process specified in Subpart F of theNCP.

Subpart F, "State Involvement in HazardousSubstance Response," of the NCP (40 CFR Part300) outlines a dispute resolution process thatEPA Regions and states should use to resolvedisputes that arise during the RI/FS and remedyselection process. This approach encourages thelead and support agencies' RPMs to resolve anydisputes promptly. If this cannot beaccomplished, the issue could be referred totheir supervisors for further EPA/stateconsultation.4 This supervisory referral andresolution process should continue, if necessary,to the level of Director of the state agency andthe Regional Administrator, respectively. Ifagreement, still cannot be reached, .the disputeshould be referred to the Assistant Administratorof OSWER, who serves as final arbiter.

Regardless of the process used, the resultshould be an equitable resolution of outstandingissues. There may be instances, however, inwhich a final resolution cannot be achieved. Ifthis should occur, two alternatives exist forcontinuing effective action. First, if EPA is thelead agency (pursuant to sections 104, 106, or122), the Region should use its discretion as towhether to proceed with publication of theProposed Plan. Second, if the State is the leadagency (pursuant to section 104), EPA couldelect to become the lead agency for the ProposedPlan, public participation activities, and theROD. (This applies only to Fund-financed,state-lead projects.) It should be noted,however, that mutual acceptance of the preferredalternative (and, ultimately, of the selectedremedy) by both EPA and the State is crucial toeffecting cleanup at the site.

I>3.4 ROLE OF OTHER FEDERAL ^

AGENCIES °""s

Executive Order 12580 delegates the <^>authority for carrying out the requirements ofCERCLA sections 117(a) and (c) to Federalagencies with Federal facilities under theirjurisdiction. A Federal agency, therefore, hasthe responsibility to issue the Proposed Plan.The IAGs between a Federal agency. EPA, and,in many cases, me State should establish theresponsibilities for each party in. preparing theProposed Plan for Federal facilities.

As the lead agency, a Federal agency'sresponsibilities for preparing the Proposed Planinclude those lead agency responsibilitiesspecified in Chapters 2 and 3 of this guidance,The support agency, EPA, and/or the Stateshould have sufficient time before publication ofthe Proposed Plan to comment on the RI/FSReport and the Proposed Plan. The length ofthe review period should be specified in theIAG. The Federal agency should respondformally to comments made by EPA and theState. The formal response to the commentsshould be sent to the support agency(ies) andincluded in the Administrative Record Filebefore the beginning of the public commentperiod.

Comments of the support agency (i.e., EPAand/or the State) and Federal agency responsesto those comments should also be summarized inthe Proposed Plan. Under the state/supportagency acceptance criterion in the Evaluation ofAlternatives section, the Federal agency should:

• Explain whether the support agency agreesor disagrees with the Proposed Plan(especially the preferred alternative)

• Indicate which alternative the support agencyprefers when there is a disagreement

• Provide a summary of any outstandingsupport agency comments.


3.5 ROLE OF POTENTIALLYRESPONSIBLE PARTIES

In accordance with the requirements ofCERCLA sections 104 and 122, EPA canprovide PRPs with the opportunity to conductthe required response actions (i.e., the RI/FS,except for the risk assessment, remedial design,and remedial action). In the event that the PRPsconduct the RI/FS (excluding the riskassessment), either EPA or the State will becomethe lead governmental agency for generaloversightof the RI/FS. EPA or the State shouldprepare the Proposed Plan and the ROD, even ifthe PRP conducts the RI/FS.5

COe^C3PRPs could participate in the^ reme, . , . 'w"selection process by commentmg^on t

Proposed Plan and on other publiclyyailalinformation contained ia the AdministratiRecord during the formal public commcperiod. The lead agency, although not iegaobligated to respond to comments submittedPRPs and members of the public before tformal public comment period, is encourageddo so.

1. If •. State has taken responsibility for an NPL site and is conducting the cleanup under the State's ownauthority (i.e., a state-lead enforcement action), the state should keep EPA informed of the progress at the site.

2. The SMOA is a procedural agreement that outlines cooperative efforts between States and EPA Regions ardefines the roles and responsibilities of each party in the conduct of a Superfund program in a. state. For moinformation, see-laterim final Guidance on Preparing a Superfwsd Memorandum, of'Agreement (SMOA) (OSWEDirective 9375.0-01, May. 1989). The CA is a contractual agreement between EPA and the State in which EPappropriates money to the State to. conduct remedial planning activities and/or remedial action in compliance withe. NCP. -The SSC documents any required cost sharing between EPA and the State but does not invol'disbursement of Federal monies.

3. If the State has taken responsibility for an NPL site and is conducting the cleanup under me state's o»authorities (i.e., as a state-lead enforcement site), the State should keep EPA informed about progress at the sutt

4. It is possible that one of the participants will choose to refer an unresolved issue to upper management, whrthe other participant chooses to maintain jurisdiction over the issue.

5. At those sites for which the PRP conducts the RI/FS, the PRP should not indicate its preferred alternative in &RI/FS Report. If the PRP wants to communicate this information to the lead agency, it should do so through somother mechanism, such as a memorandum.

January 16, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Cits25

4.0 THE NEWSPAPER NOTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OFTHE PROPOSED PLAN AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT PEMOD

This chapter summarizes the requirementsfor the newspaper notification, which announcesthe availability of the Proposed Plan, andpresents guidance on procedures for the publiccomment period.

4.1 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

OERCLA section 117 requires that uponcompletion of the Proposed Plan, the leadagency shall notify the public of the availabilityof the Plan, the RI/FS Report, and theAdministrative Record. The statutoryrequirements are as follows:

• Section 117(a)(l) requires the lead agency todo the following:

Publish a notice and brief analysis ofthe.Prdposed"PIan and-make such Plan

" available to the public

Include sufficient information in thenotice and analysis as may be necessaryto provide a reasonable explanation ofthe Proposed Plan and alternativeproposals considered.

• Section 117(d) further specifies that:

Publication shall include, at a minimum,publication in a major local newspaperof general circulation. In addition, eachitem developed, received, published, ormade available under this section to thepublic shall be available for publicinspection and copying at or near thefacility or site where the remedial actionis being considered.

4.2 WRITING THENOTIFICATION

The lead agency's newspaper notificationshould include a brief abstract of the Proposed

NEWSPAPER

Plan. which describes the alternatives analyzedand identifies the preferred alternative. Thenotice should be published in a widely readsection of me newspaper, rather than in theclassified advertisements or legal notices. Keyelements of the notification are summarizedbelow. Highlight 8 provides a samplenewspaper notification based on the hypotheticalsite described in Appendix A.

The newspaper notification should consist ofthe following elements:

• Site Name and Location. The noticeshould include the proper site name andlocation.

• The Date and Location of a PublicMeeting (if scheduled). If a meeting has notbeen requested or scheduled, the noticeshould inform the public of its right torequest one.

• Identification of Lead and SupportAgencies. The notice should identify whichentities (i.e., EPA, state agency, or otherFederal agency) are serving as lead andsupport agencies for the response action.

• Alternatives Evaluated in the DetailedAnalysis. The notice should list theremedial alternatives evaluated in thedetailed analysis phase of the FS.1

• Identification of Preferred Alternative. Abrief statement of the major components ofthe preferred alternative should beincluded.2

• Request for Public Comments. The noticeshould emphasize that the lead agency issoliciting public comment on all of thealternatives evaluated in the detailedanalysis phase of the FS, as well as on thepreferred alternative. It should include a


0^00-^

Highlight 8: Sample Newspaper Notification of Availability of the Proposed Plan ^

THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYInvites

PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CLEANUP OF THE HO INDUSTRIAL SITEat

129 FRANKLIN STREET, NAMELESS. TN

"Ilse U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Tennessee Pollution Control Board(TPCB) will hold a Public Mve&ag to discuss the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)Report and ths Proposed Plan for the EIO site. 'Hie meeting will be held on September 10. 1991, at7:30 p.m. in the Community Hall. X23 Market Road, Nameless, Tennessee.

EPA (the lead age-acy) asd the TPCB (the support agency) evaluated the following options foraddressing the contaminated soil, sediments, and ground water at the HO site:

For soil and sediment cleanup:- No action- Excavation, incineration, and disposal off site- In-situ soil vapor extraction and solidification- Excavation, incineration^ solidification, and capping on site- Consolidation and capping.

For ground-water cleanup:- No action -"—- Pump and treat by carbon adsorption and discharge to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW)- Pump.and treat by air stripping and discharge to XYZ River-.TreaUsy in-situ biorestoration..

Based on available information, the preferred option at this time is to excavate the estimated13,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sediments at the site, incinerate the orgamcs, solidifythe soils to immobilize metal contaminants) of concern, and dispose of them on site and to pumpand treat the ground water by carbon adsorption and discharge it to a POTW.

Although this is the preferred alternative at the present time, EPA and TPCB welcome the public'scomments on all of the alternatives identified above. EPA and TPCB will choose the final remedyafter the public comment period ends and may select any one of the options after taking thosecomments into account.

The Proposed Plan has been mailed to all known interested parties. Also, complete documentationof the analysis is presented in the RI/FS Report and in the Proposed Plan, which are available forreview at the Nameless Public Library, 125 Elm Street, as are any other documents contained in theAdministrative Record.

Tie public may comment in person at the public meeting and/or may submit written commentstoday and until October 1, 1991, to Joshua Doc at the EPA address below. For further information,contact:

Joshua DoeCommunity Relations Coordinator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency200 Peachtree StreetAtlanta. GA 11111

(555) 555-4640

Toll Free (800) 333-3333 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federalholidays. _________________________


clear statement that the preferred alternative isonly a preliminary determination, and that anyof the other options presented could be selectedas the remedy based upon public comment, newinformation, or a reevaluation of existinginformation. The readers should be referred tothe RI/FS Report and other contents of theAdministrative Record File for furtherinformation on all of the remedial alternativesconsidered. The Proposed Plan also shouldrequest comments on any variances or waiversthat must be obtained to comply with ARARs.For example, if a Treatability Variance isrequired to comply with the RCRA LDRs. theProposed Plan should specifically solicitcomments on the Variance for all alternatives forwhich it is required.

• Public Participation. The notice shouldinform the public of its role in the remedyselection process and provide the following

, .information:

Location of the information repositories_and.tfae Administrative Record

Methods by which the public maysubmit comments

Dates of the public comment period.

43 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

This section provides guidance on theprocedures the lead agency should follow tosatisfy the public participation requirements insection 117 of CERCLA. Section 117(a)(2)requires that the lead agency do the following:

... (provide] a reasonable opportunity forsubmission of written and oral commentsand an opportunity for a public meetingat or near the facility at issue regardingthe proposed plan and regarding anyproposed findings [relating to cleanupstandards and any proposed waiver]...[and] keep a transcript of the meetingand make such transcript available to thepublic.

The lead agency is charged with making therelevant documents, such as the Proposed Planand the RI/FS Report, available to the public atthe time the public comment period begins.3 Inaddition, the lead agency should ensure that anyinformation considered or relied' upon inselecting the response action is included as partof the Administrative Record File and isavailable to the public during the publiccomment period.

CERCLA section 117(a)(2) also requires thelead agency to provide the public with areasonable opportunity to submit written andoral comments on the Proposed Plan. The leadagency must allow the public a minimum of 30days to comment on the information contained inthe RI/FS Report (including any proposedwaivers relating to ARARs). Longer timeperiods may be determined to be appropriate,depending on specific site circumstances. Upontimely request, section 300.415(m)(4)(iii) of theNCP also requires the lead agency to extend thecomment period by a minimum of 30 additionaldays.

Although the lead agency could respond tooral or written comments received during theRI/FS process, before the public commentperiod, the lead agency has no legal obligationto do so. To ensure that all comments areaddressed, the lead agency should askindividuals to resubmit comments that wereinitially made during the RI/FS process duringthe formal public comment period.

Further guidance on the public commentperiod and the lead agency's responsibilities canbe found in Community Relations in Superfund:A Handbook (OSWER Directive 9230.0-3B.June 1988) and the Final Guidance onAdministrative Records for the Selection ofCERCLA Response Actions (OSWER Directive9833.3A-1, December 3, 1990).


1. Statutory requirements of CERCLA section U7(a).

2. Statutory requirements of CERCLA section H7(a).

3. In addition to being published in the newspaper, the codec of the Proposed Plan should be sent directly toPRPs via the commuaily relations or enforcement mailing list for the site. (Although this is not a statutoryrequirement, this may allow those PRPs who may be outside the circulation area of the local newspaper toparticipate in a timely manner.)


5.0 PRE-RECORD OF DECISION CHANGES

5.1 OVERVIEW

After the public comment period ends, afinal remedial alternative is selected for adoptionin the ROD. Ine selection of the remedy isbased on the analysis presented in the ProposedPlan and RI/FS Report, giving consideration tothe comments from the support agency and thepublic, as well as any other new and significantinformation received or generated. The leadagency may re-evaluate the preferred alternativein light of mis information and may change acomponent of the preferred remedy or choose toimplement a remedy other than the preferredalternative.

When the lead agency makes a change(s),the change must. beJipcumented. If a change ismade (i.e., a different alternative from that pre-ferred in the^roposed Plan or. in a componentof-the-remedy from Plan to final selection),according to CERCLA section 117(b). the leadagency should analyze these changes to deter-mine if the modifications are "significant" or"minor."

This chapter presents a general frameworkfor categorizing minor and significant changesmade to the Proposed Plan after it is issued forpublic comment. It also specifies documentationand communication activities that may benecessary to inform the public of these changes.The chapter discusses only changes that aremade before the ROD is signed; post-RODchanges are discussed in Chapter 8.

5.2 IDENTIFYING TYPES OF PRE-RECORD OF DECISION CHANGES

The lead agency has the discretion to makechanges to me Proposed Plan based either onnew information received from the public orsupport agency or on information generated bythe lead agency itself during the remedial pro-cess. A site-specific determination of what

constitutes a "significant" or a "minor" changeis made after taking into consideration: (1) theinformation previously made available to thepublic; (2) the original description of thealternatives presented in me Proposed Plan(outlined in detail in the RI/FS Report); and (3)the impact that the changes may have on thealternative's scope,. performance, and/or cost(see NCP preamble 55 FR 8772 for morediscussion).

5.2.1 Minor Changes

Minor changes are those that have little orno impact on the overall scope, performance, orcost of the alternative originally presented in theProposed Plan as the preferred alternative forthe site or operable unit. Such changes typicallywill be clarifications, administrative changes,and minor technical or engineering changes thatdo not significantly alter the overall scope,performance, or cost of the alternative.

5.2.2 Significant Changes

In contrast to minor changes, significantchanges have a significant or fundamental effecton the scope, performance, and/or cost of thepreferred alternative. They generally involveeither:

• Selecting an RI/FS alternative other than thepreferred alternative identified in theProposed Plan as the remedy

• Substantially modifying a component of thepreviously identified preferred alternative.

Highlight 9 explains the types of changes thatconstitute significant changes of a remedy'sscope, performance, or cost. Because whatconstitutes a significant change will varydepending upon site circumstances and themanner in which the information was presented

January 16. 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Cite30

Highlight 9: Ctianges ThatSignificantly Affect Scope,Performance, and/or Cost

Scope: Changes that substantiallyalter the volume of waste to beaddressed or the physical area ofthe site, or address a newenvironiEentaI pathway.

Performance: Changes intreatment technologies or processesthat significantly alter the long-term effectiveness of the remedyor that have significantly differentshort-term effects.

Cost: Changes to any aspect ofthe selected alternative that sub-stantially alter the capital or opera-tion and maintenance cost esti-mates for the-final alternative.

in the RI/FS Report and Proposed Plan, "signifi-cant change" is not specifically defined in thisguidance. Highlight 10 summarizes the processfor analyzing and documenting pre-RODchanges.

5.3 DOCUMENTING PRE-RECORD OFDECISION CHANGES

CERCLA section 117(b) requires that thefinal remedial action plan (i.e., the ROD) beaccompanied by:

... a discussion of any significantchanges (and the reasons for suchchanges) in the proposed plan and aresponse to each of the significantcomments, criticisms, and new datasubmitted [in the RI/FS Report and theProposed Plan].

53.1 Documenting Minor Changes

Although the statute does not requiredocumentation of minor changes, such changesto the Proposed Plan should be discussed in the

"Description of Alternatives" sectio^ of"ROD Decision Summary" (see ffigh^t 12page 46) and should be document^ inAdministrative Record File. Minor chanshould not be discussed in the signifkchanges section of the ROD Decision Summa

5.3.2 Documenting Significant Changes

The type of documentation requiredsignificant changes depends on whether orthe change is a logical outgrowth of 'information available to the public for commin the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS Report.

A logical outgrowth occurs where the pubcould have reasonably anticipated the chan;based on information available during the pubcomment period and the comments submitttA significant change would be considered toa logical outgrowth where, based on the coiments received during me public commeperiod, the Agency selects, from among talternatives discussed in the FS and/or ProposPlan, an alternative (or parts of alternatives) tl-differs from the preferred alternative in tProposed Plan.

Significant Changes That Are Logical Oigrowths of the Information Available to tiPublic

A significant change that is a logicoutgrowth of information available to the publin the Proposed Plan and RI/FS Report shoube documented at the end of the "DecisicSummary of the ROD" in the "Documentation iSignificant Changes" section. Additional publnotice or comment on this type of changeunnecessary. Examples of types of significaichanges that may be considered logic.outgrowths include:

• A Change to a Component of the SelecteAlternative. In response to comments, tfclead agency makes a significant change tocomponent of the selected remedy (e.g.,change in the preferred remedy's cos'itiming, level of performance, or compliancwith ARARs) that could have been


anticipated by the public. The overall wastemanagement approach represented by thealternative remains the same.

» Selection of a Remedy Other Than thePreferred Alternative Specified in theRI/FS Report and Proposed Plan. Inresponse to comments, the lead agencydetermines, based on information receivedduring the comment period, that thepreferred alternative in the Proposed Plan nolonger provides the most appropriate balanceof trade-offs among the alternatives withrespect to me nine evaluation criteria.Information available to the lead agencysuggests that another alternative from theProposed Plan and RI/FS Report providesthe best balance of trade-ofis, and the leadagency selects the other alternative.

• Combining Components of Alternatives., The Proposed Plan and RI/FS Reportrecommended "several alternatives (orcombinations of alternatives) for addressingdifferentJpathways at a site. The lead

' agency decides to combine some of thealternatives (or take parts of combinations toform yet another combination).

Significant Changes That Are Not LogicalOutgrowths of the Information Available tothe Public

In those limited situations in which thepublic could not reasonably have anticipated thesignificant change that is made, the change is nota logical outgrowth of the Proposed Plan and itssupporting information. Therefore, a revisedProposed Plan that presents the new preferredalternative must be issued for public comment(NCP section 300.430(f)(3)(ii)(B)). The revisedProposed Plan must be prepared in accordancewith the requirements of both CERCLA section117 and the NCP. (These requirements arediscussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of this guidance.)Appropriate supporting material that providestfae necessary engineering, cost, and riskinformation for the new alternative(s), and thatdiscusses how the new altemative(s) compares to

0•

the other alternatives with respect te^he ievaluation criteria should be provfttid inrevised Proposed Plan. (It may be aporoprto provide this information as a supplemen'the RI/FS Report.)

In addition, significant changes to the reviProposed Plan must be documented at the encthe "Decision Summary of the ROD" in"Documentation of Significant Changes** seedExamples of types of significant changes irequire a new Proposed Plan, additional putcomment, and documentation in the RODpresented below:

• Selection of a_New Alternative That VNot Previously Considered. The 1agency determines that an alternative twas not presented in the Proposed Plandetailed analysis phase of the RI/FS Repshould be selected as the remedy. The ralternative is not a logical outgrowth (e.combination) of considered altemativThe lead agency should issue a reviProposed Plan that presents the npreferred alternative and provi-appropriate supporting information for put-comment. The significant change shoalso be described in the ROD. Tdescription should note the initially prefer:alternative, the new alternative, andreason for the change.]

• Significant Change to a Component of f

Selected Alternative. Part of the rememust be altered (e.g., to comply withnewly discovered ARAR), resultingfundamental changes to the remedy. Sichanges require additional public commenmaking the change will radically alteroverall remedy with regard to its sco-performance, or cost in a manner thatpublic could not reasonably have anticipat

Highlight 11 presents examples of mirand significant pre-ROD changes.


Highlight 11: Examples of Pre-Record of Decision Changes

Minor Changes

• It was determined that a remedy will require eight ground-water extraction wells, rather than sixwells, as estimated originally in the Proposed Plan, to achieve cleanup objectives within thedesired time period.

• The volume of material to be excavated aad treated is actually 120,000 cubic yards, rather thanthe 110,000 cubic yards, as estimated originally in the Proposed Plan.

• Based on information received during the public comment period, the lead agency determinesthat the capital cost estimate in the Proposed Plan was about 10 percent too low; the actualcapital cost of the remedy is $5,100,000. The lead agency also identifies factors that wouldextend the implementation time frame to IS months. These changes do not significantly alterthe scope, performance, or cost of the remedy.

Significant Changes - Logical Outgrowth

• Tlie RI/FS Report for a site specified one alternative to address contaminated soils and anotherto remediate-the ground water. In identifying the preferred alternative for each of these mediain the Proposed Plan, the lead agency did not make a conclusive determination regarding themost appropriate combination of the source control and ground-water alternatives for the site.

• • TEc' lead agency chooses to retain the preferred alternative for the ground water, but rejects thepreferred soil remediation alternative and selects a different alternative from among thosepresented in the Proposed Plan.

• The lead agency receives new information during the public comment period that prompts achange in the remediation goal for the soils; as a result, the volume of contaminated soils thatshould be addressed is 30,000 cubic yards ingr^^ of 15,000 cubic yards, as originallyestimated. Tne time to implement the remedy increases from 15 to 21 months, and costsincrease by 15 percent.

Significant Changes - Not Logical Outgrowth

• In-situ vitrification, which was NOT presented in the Proposed Plan or the detailed analysissection of the FS, is selected as the remedy for the site, because new information was receivedindicating that in-situ vitrification could be used effectively at the site. This new remedy,however, is quite different in scope and performance from any other alternative considered indetail in either the Proposed Plan or RI/FS Report. Because the public has not had an adequateopportunity to comment on the technical, environmental, and human health aspects of theremedy or to evaluate and compare its performance in terms of the nine evaluation criteria, arevised Proposed Plan should be prepared and a new public comment period should be heldbefore the remedy is adopted in the ROD.

NOTE: The examples presented here do not represent strict thresholds for changes in cost,volume, and/or time. THIS GUIDANCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH STANDARDS FORSIGNIFICANT CHANGES.


6.0 WMTING THE RECORD OF DECISION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a section-by-sectiondiscussion of the components of a CERCLAROD. These components are the Declaration,the Decision Summary, and the ResponsivenessSummary. This chapter applies specifically todecision documents prepared for final responseactions that are planned either for a site or anoperable unit within a site. Final responseactions are those actions that comply withstatutory determinations, and mat address thestatutory preference for treatment as a principalelement.

Guidance on preparing a ROD thatdocuments a no action or an interim (or limited)action is presented in Chapter 9. A no actiondecision is made_:--when the lead agencydetermines that a response action is unnecessaryto control, mitigate, or eliminate exposure. Aninterim action decision is made for those actionsof limited scope that will be followed by finalresponse actions for that operable unit. Chapter9 outlines the modifications to the standardformat (as outlined in this chapter) that shouldbe made when documenting these two kinds ofremedial decisions. In addition, the proceduresin Chapter 9 should be consulted when adecision is contemplated that includes both aselected remedy and a contingency remedy thatcould be implemented if the primary remedydoes not attain its performance specifications.

6.1.1 Purpose of the Record of Decision

The ROD documents the remedial actionplan for a site or operable unit. It is preparedby the lead agency in consultation with thesupport agency(ies). The ROD has thefollowing three purposes:

• First, the ROD serves a legal function inthat it certifies that the remedy selectionprocess was carried out in accordance withthe requirements of CERCLA and, to the

extent practicable, in accordance with theNCP1

• Second, the ROD is a technical documentthat outlines the engineering components andremediation goals of the selected remedy

• Third, the ROD is mfonoaticnal, providingthe public with a consolidated source ofinformation about the history,characteristics, and risks posed by theconditions at the site, as well as a summaryof the cleanup alternatives considered, theirevaluation, and the rationale behind theselected remedy.

The ROD is a "stand-alone" document; it mustinclude all the necessary information andrationale to support the selected remedy.References to other documents, such as theRI/FS Report, should be minimal.

6.1.2 Statutory Requirements to Issue theRecord of Decision

Sections 113 and 117 of CERCLA. asamended, require that the Agency issue a finalremedial action plan. The Superftmd programcommonly refers to this plan as the ROD.Section 113(k)(2)(B)(v) of CERCLA. asamended, calls for "a statement of basis andpurpose for the selected remedy at a site." Inaddition, section 117(b) requires that:

Notice of the final remedial action plan[ROD] adopted shall be published andthe plan shall be made available to thepublic before commencement of anyremedial action. Such final plan shall beaccompanied by a discussion of anysignificant changes (and the reasons forsuch changes) in the proposed plan anda response to each of the significantcomments, criticisms, and new datasubmitted in written or oral presentations[Responsiveness Summary],

January 16, 1992 *** Do Not Quote or Cite35

6.13 Major Components of the Record ofDecision

The ROD consists of three basiccomponents: a Declaration, a DecisionSummary, and a Responsiveness Summary (seeHighlight 13):

• The Declaration functions as an abstract forthe key information contained in me RODand is me section of the ROD signed by theEPA Regional Administrator or AssistantAdministrator.

• The Decision Summary provides anoverview of the site characteristics, thealternatives evaluated, and the analysis ofthose options. The Decision Summary alsoidentifies me selected remedy and explainshow the remedy fulfills statutoryrequirements.

• The Responsiveness Summary addressespublic comments received on the ProposedPlan, RI/pS'Report, and other information inuie administrative record.

The key elements of each of these threecomponents are described in the followingsections.

6.2 KEY ELEMENTS OF THEDECLARATION

The Declaration functions as an abstract forthe information contained in the ROD. It brieflydescribes the selected remedy for the site andformally states that the selected remedy complieswith CERCLA and is consistent, to the extentpracticable, with the NCP. The Declaration isthe section of the ROD signed by the EPARegional Administrator or Assistant Administra-tor. The State Direc-.Jr or Federal facilityrepresentative should co-sign the ROD when theState or other Federal Agency is designated asthe lead agency for preparing the ROD.Highlight 13 is a sample of the Declaration.

OS•<*(0-CT

Highlight 12: Outline for th?Standard Record of Deciste^

Declaration

• Site Name and Location• Statement of Bssis and Purpose• Assessment of the Site• Description of the Selected

Remedy• Statutory Determinations• Signature and Support Agency

Acceptance of the Remedy

Decision Summary

• Site Name, Location, andDescription

• Site History and EnforcementActivities

• Highlights of CommunityParticipation

• Scope and Role of Operable Unit• Site Characteristics• Summary of Site Risks• Description of Alternatives• Summary of Comparative Analysis of

Alternatives• Selected Remedy• Statutory Determinaticns• Documentation of Significant Changes

Responsiveness Summary

• Community Preferences• Integration of Comments

6.2.1 Site Name and Location

The proper site name (as listed onNational Priorities List) and location (citingtown or county and state in which the silocated) should be included in the Declarati

6.2.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose

Section 113(k)(2)(B)(v) of CERCLA reqithat "a statement of basis and purpose ofselected remedy" be prepared. To complythis requirement. EPA must explain the fac:


Highlight 13: Sample Declaration for the Record of Decision:Statutory Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element Is Met

and Five-Year Site Renew Is not Required

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Super KIeen Company SiteDustbowl, AZ

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document preaeuts die selected remedial action for the Super Kleea Company site, in Dustbowl,Arizona, which was chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and, to the extent practicable, theNational Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the Administrative Record for this site.

The State of Arizona concurs with the selected remedy.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing theresponse action selected in this ROD, may present an uamiaent and substantial eodangcnncat to public health,welfare, or the environment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY

This operable unit-is the final action of three operable units for me site. The first operable unit at this siteinvolved remediation of a municipal well. The second operable unit involved remediation of the ground water. Thisfinal operableumt addresses the source of tfae soil and ground-water contamination. This action addresses theprincipal threat remaining at the site by treating the most highly contaminated soils and waste material. Treatmentresiduals and soils contaminated at low levels will be disposed of off site, so mat the site will not require any long-term management.

The major components of the selected remedy include:

• Excavation and treatment, via on-site thermal destruction, of approximately 10,000 cubic yards ofcontaminated soils and waste materials from the former lagoon area

• Disposal of treatment residuals and approximately 2,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils at an off-siteRCRA Subtitle C disposal facility.

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedy is protective of human health and the enviromneat, complies with Federal and staterequirements mat are legally applicible or relevant and appropriate to me remedial action, and is cost-effective.This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to themaximum extent practicable acd satisfies me statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that reducestoxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element. Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substancesremaining on-site above health-based levels, the five-year review will not apply to this action.

Signature (Regional Administrator/ Signature (State Director)Assistant Administrator

Date Date

January 16, 1992 '*'** Do Not Quote or Cite37

and legal basis for selecting a particular remedy.The ROD serves as this statement of basis andpurpose, and the Declaration should make astatement to that effect. This section of meDeclaration also should state that the informationsupporting the lead and support agencies'decisions on the selected remedy is contained inthe administrative record. [Note: TheAdministrative Record Index need not beattached to the ROD but should be placed in theAdministrative Record File.] lilts sectionshould also specify whether the State concurs ordoes not concur with the selected remedy.Highlight 14 provides standard language for thestatement of basis and purpose.

Highlight 14: StJUidard Languagefor the Statement of Basis and Purpose

This decision document presents theselected remedial .action for the (sitename), in (location), which was chosen inaccordance with CERCLA, as amended bySARA, and;'to the'extent practicable, theNational'Oil and Hazardous SubstancesPollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Thisdecision is based on the administrativerecord for this site.

The State/Commonwealth of _____(concurs/does not concur) with theselected remedy.

6.23 Assessment of the Site

The Declaration should state the existence ofan imminent and substantial endangennent topublic health, welfare, or the environment. Thestatement (or language similar to the statement)in Highlight 15 should be added to all RODs(except where the cleanup decision is to take "noaction") or this statement is not valid given thecircumstances of the site:

^C->0JSS.

Highlight 15: Standard Lan tSge forAssessment of the Site

Actual or threatened releases ofhazardousubstances from this site, if not addresseiby implementing the response actiozselected in this ROD, may present aiimminent and substantial endangennent tcpublic health, welfare, or theenvironment.

6.2.4 Description of the Selected Remen

The selected remedy should be identifieddescribed briefly. This description sheinclude the following elements:

• A brief explanation of how this respoaction fits into the overall site clearstrategy, if the action is an operable i(e.g., "this is the second of three operaunits")

• A statement as to how the selected respoaction dees or does not address the princithreat(s) posed by the site

• A description of the major componentsthe selected remedy, in bullet forincluding the treatment technologies and<engineering controls that will be used,well as any institutional controls, suchdeed or access restrictions.

6.2.5 Statutory Determinations

The ROD Declaration should conclude wthe finding that the selected remedy satisfies istatutory requirements of CERCLA section 1;For the Declaration, this can be accomplishedmaking confirmatory statements that the selectremedy attained the four statutory mandates (sbelow) and the statutory preference ftreatment.

January 16. 1992 *** Do Not Quote or Cite38

The four mandates ofCERCLA section 121require that all remedial actions taken pursuantto sections 104 or 106 must:

• Be protective of human health and theenvironment

• Comply with ARARs (or justify, a waiver)

• Be cost-effective

•, Utilize permanent solutions and alternativetreatment technologies or resource recoverytechnologies, to the maximum extentpracticable.

In addition, the statutory preference fortreatment in CERCLA section 121 should beaddressed in all RODs, including thosedocumenting selected remedies that do not meetthe statutory preference for treatment. Section121 requires that the lead agency provide anexplanation whenever'a remedy is chosen thatdoes not employ treatment that permanently andsignificantly-reduces the toxicily, mobility, orvolume of hazardous substances as its principalelement.

Finally, the applicability of the five-yearreview required by CERCLA section 121 shouldbe addressed in this part of the Declaration.This review evaluates whether a remedycontinues to provide adequate protection ofhuman health and the environment, and it shouldbe conducted at every site where the remedialaction results in hazardous substances remainingon site above health-based levels.

Sample Boilerplate Language for MakingStatutory Determinations

Sample boilerplate language that addressesthe statutory determinations is provided inHighlights 13 and 16. The language in missection of the Declaration will vary, dependingupon whether the statutory preference fortreatment is satisfied and whether the five-yearreview is applicable. The sample Declaration inHighlight 13 provides guidance for a remedy

that meets the statutory preference for treatmentas a principal element, with no required five-year review. The sample Declaration inHighlight 16 provides guidance for a remedythat does not meet the statutory preference fortreatment and for which a five-year review isrequired. For circumstances where the statutorypreference for treatment is satisfied and a five-year review is required, the appropriate mix ofsample language from Highlights 13 and 16should be used.

If the remedy does not meet the statutorypreference for treatment, then the StatutoryDeterminations section of the Declaration shouldinclude a statement to this effect and summarizethe rationale for choosing a remedy that does notcontain treatment as a principal element. Thisrationale could be based on the specific factorsused to determine that the treatment isimpracticable, such as technical infeasibillty.inadequate short-term protection of human healthand the environment, or unavailability ofnecessary capacity, equipment, or specialists. Inaddition, a brief statement asserting that past orfuture operable units have met or will meet thestatutory preference for treatment should beincluded, when appropriate.

6.2.6 Signature and Support AgencyAcceptance of the Remedy

All ROD Declarations are signed and datedby Regional Administrator or the AssistantAdministrator of OSWER. When the state is thelead agency for developing the ROD, the StateDirector should sign the ROD. When the stateis the support agency, the state's signature onthe ROD is optional (i.e.. the SMOA. CA, orSSC may or may not provide for suchsignature). At a minimum, a letter from thestate specifying concurrence or nonconcurrenceshould always be included in the AdministrativeRecord File. In situations where a Federalagency other than EPA is the lead agency, thatagency should co-sign the ROD with EPA.


Highlight 16: Sample Declaration for the Record of Decision: °Statutory Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element is Not MeF

and Five-Year Site Review is Required

SETS NAME ANP LOCATION

Municipal Landfill SiteNowhere, NY

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents ihe selected rennedud action for die MiBiacipd Landfill siee, in Nowhere. New Yorkdeveloped m accozdancf with CERCLA,» amended by SARA, «od, to the extern practicable, (he National ContmgencyPlan. This decision is based on the Administrative Record for this site.

The State of New York concurs on the selected remedy,

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing the responseaction selected in this ROD. may present an imminent and substantial endangemieni to public health* welfare, or theenvironment.

DESCRIPTION OFTHE REMEDY

This operable unit is the first of two that are planned for the site. The Erst operable unit addresses the source of ihccontamination by containing the on-site wastes and contaminated soils. The function of this operable unit is to seal off iheMunicq^ LandHn site ss a source of ground-water contsmmation and to redixe the nsfu associated with e

' contanunaMd materials. While this remedy addresses the principal threat al the site, the second operable unit will remediathe contaminated air plume.

The major components of the selected remedy include:

• Installing a security fence around the landfill site• Capping the 65-acre landfill in accordance with RCRA Subtitle D requirements• Installing surface-water controls 10 acconunodale seasonal precipitation; and• Conducting environmemai monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the remedial action.


The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and state requirementsthat are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cosi-effective. This remedy utilizespermanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this site. However.because treatment of the principal threat of the site was not found to be practicable, this remedy does not satisfy the siatuiorpreference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy. The size of the landfill and the fact that there are no on-sitehot spots that represent the major sources of contamination preclude selecting a remedy in which contaminant(s) of concerncould be excavated and treated effectively.

Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining onsite above health-based levels, a review will beconducted within five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequalprotection of human health and the environment.

Signamre (Regional Administrator/ Signature (State Director)Assistant AdminisErator)

Date Date


Although the goal of the interactions betweenthe lead and support agencies is to reach mutualagreement on the ROD, there may be limitedinstances in which this is not achieved. In suchan event, the procedures for selecting andimplementing the remedy depend on who has thelead responsibility for me ROD. IfEPAhasthelead, and the State does not concur with meselected remedy, then EPA has the discretionaryauthority to sign the ROD and continue throughthe remedial design stage. EPA cannot proceedbeyond the remedial design stage, however,without the State's cost-share.

If me state is the lead and EPA does not concurwith the selected remedy, EPA can assume thelead for the ROD and proceed through thedesign stage. In either case, all informationpertaining to the disagreement should beincluded in the Administrative Record. It shouldbe noted that EPA and/or the State retainauthority to sign RODs where RI/FS activitiesare conducted by the PRPs or by a Federalagency. . .

63 KEY ELEMENTS OF THE DECISIONSUMMARY

The Decision Summary, the second and maincomponent of the ROD, should provide anoverview of the site-specific factors and analysisthat led to selection of the remedy for theoperable unit or site. In general, this section ofme ROD should describe the following:

• The history of site activities

• The nature and extent of site contamination

• The alternatives evaluated

• The analysis leading to the final remedyselection

• How the selected remedy satisfies thestatutory requirements.

Although some of the information presented inthe Decision Summary is similar to that

presented in the Declaration, this sectiondiscusses the topics in greater detail andprovides the rationale for those "declarations.1*

The Decision Summary, to a great extent,should summarize information that is already inthe Administrative Record for a site, particularlythe RI/FS Report. However, when informationis unavailable or is not satisfactorily addressed inthe Administrative Record, the discussion in theROD Summary may need to be more thorough.Hie final section, which identifies the selectedremedy and explains how the remedy satisfiesthe statutory requirements, is the one completelyoriginal section of the Decision Summary.

63.1 Site Name. Location, and Description

This section should briefly describe basicinformation about the site location and the actualor potential threat from the site. The sitedescription should include the followinginformation:

• Location and address at which the responseaction is occurring, including the name ofthe town or county, me state in which thesite is located, and the site's distance fromsignificant locations, such as an intersectionor geographical boundary

Inclusion of maps an<'. charts in this section isencouraged.

6.3.2 Site History and EnforcementActivities

This section should provide backgroundinformation on the site's history and enforcementactions taken to date. Factors that should beaddressed include the following:

• The history of activities at the site that haveled to the current problems, such asmanufacturing activities or disposal ofhazardous substances (e.g., a key piece ofinformation may be whether a site operatedbefore or after the effective date of RCRA,


and state siteremedial actionsCERCLA. and

authorities, suchstate authorities,cited violationsenvironmental

such as November 19, 1980, or July 26,1982)

The history of Federalinvestigations, removal, orconducted to date underunder other environmentalas RCRA. CWA, CAA, oras well as a history of anyunder Federal or stateregulations or statutes

• Ine history of CERCLAactivities at the site, such as the results ofPRP searches, whether a special t&otice hasbeen issued to PRPs, or whether a lawsuithas bees filed regarding cleanup of the site.

6.3.3 Highl ights of CommunityParticipation

. CERCLA establishes a number of publicparticipation activities that the lead agency mustconduct during a remedial action. Tnis sectionshould briefly, note how the public participationrequirements in CERCLA section 113(k)(2)(B)(i-v) and 117 were met in the remedy selectionprocess (e.g., issuance of fact sheets,opportunity for public comment, publicmeetings). These requirements are establishedto provide:

» Notice to potentially affected persons and thepublic, which shall be accompanied by abrief analysis of the plan and alternativeplans that were considered [in the RI/FSReport and Proposed Plan]

• A reasonable opportunity to comment andprovide information regarding the [proposed]plan [and RI/FS Report] (i.e., publiccomment period)

• An opportunity for a public meeting to beheld in the affected area, in accordance withsection 117(a)(2) (relating to publicparticipation)

L^t^0

• A response to the significant coB?me.criticisms, and new data that were-sg^im,in either written or oral presentation

• A statement of the basis and purpose ofselected action (e.g., the ROD).

Although this description should be brief,lead agency may also include a descriptionany other major public participation activities

Community response to the selected remeshould not be included in this section; 'commumty*s response to the selected remeshould be addressed under the communacceptance criterion in the comparative analysection of the ROD and specific comrneiresponded to in the Responsiveness SumrnaiHighlight 17 is an example of the length atype of information that should be includedthis section. (This example is based on thypothetical site described in Appendix.)

6.3.4 Scope and Role of Operable UnitResponse Action

This section should discuss how the operatunit or response action addressed by the RCfits into the overall site strategy. (For exarnpl"This ROD addresses the second of thriplanned activities at the site: the first addressithe alternate water supply; this one addresscontaminated ground water; and a third waddress contaminated soils.") This secticshould focus on how the response action fits inthe overall site strategy for addressing £threat(s) posed by the conditions at the site.should summarize the scope of the problenaddressed by the selected action and identify tlcontaminated media (e.g., debris, containersediment, solid waste, drums, soil, sludge, aiand should describe whether or not the acticwill address any of the principal or low lev'threats posed by conditions at the sitt'Highlight 18 provides sample language fcdescribing the scope and role of an operable unor response action.


Highlight 17: Sample Language forCommunity Participation Activities

Highlight 18: Sample Language for Scopeand Role of Operable Unit Section

The RI/FS Report and Proposed Plan for theEIO Industrial Site were released to the publicin August 1991. These two documents weremade available to the public in both theAdministrative Record and the informationrepository maintained at the BPA DocketRoom in Region 4 and at the Nameless PublicLibrary. The notice of the availability ofthese two documects was published in theNameless Advocate on August 28, 1991. Apublic comment period was held fromSeptember 2» 1991 through October 1. 1991.A request for an extension to the public com-ment period was made. As a result, the pub-lic comment period closed on October 30,1991. In addition, a public meeting was heldon September 10, 1991. At this meeting,representatives from EPA and the TennesseePollution Control Board answered questionsabout problems at the site and the remedialalternatives under consideration. A responseto me comments received during this period isincluded in the Respoosiveness Summary,which is part of this Record of Decision.This decision document presents the selectedremedial action for the £10 Industrial Site, inNameless, Tennessee, chosen in accordancewith CERCLA, as amended by SARA. and,to the extent practicable, the National Contin-gency Plan. The decision for this site isbased on the Administrative Record.

As with many Superfund sites, die problemsat the U.N. Owen Site are complex. As aresult, EPA organized the work into threeoperable units (OUs). These are:

• OU One: Contamination in the soils.• OUTwo: Contamination in the municipal

well.• OU Three: Contamination of three

ground-water aquifers.

EPA has already selected remedies for OUOne in a ROD signed on October 22, 1991,and OU Two in a ROD signed on December6, 1991 (the soils and the municipal well,respectively). Both of these actions are in theremedial design stage. Actual construction isplanned to begin in March 1992 for OU Oneand July 1992 for OU Two.

The third OU, the subject of this ROD,addresses the contamination of three ground-water aquifers. Potential ingestion of waterextracted from these aquifers poses theprincipal risk to human health because theEPA^s acceptable risk range is exceeded andconcentrations are greater than MCLs. Thepurpose of this response is to prevent currentor future exposure to the contaminated groundwater. This third operable unit will be thefinal response action for this site.

63.5 Summary of Site Characteristics

For all types of actions, this section shouldprovide an overview of site contamination andthe actual routes of exposure posed by theconditions at the site. This can be accomplishedby describing the assessments made during theRI that characterized the site, its environment,and the extent of contamination.

The discussion in this section of the RODshould present a brief, comprehensive overviewof the site. The use of maps illustrating the

location of sources and distribution ofcontaminant(s) of concern, and tables listing thecontaminants) of concern and concentrations invarious media are recommended. A discussionof the site characteristics should include:

• A general overview of the site, summarizinggeographical and topographical informationsuch as natural resource use, adjacent landuse, location of and distance to nearbypopulations, location in a floodplain, generalsurface-water and ground-water resources,and surface and subsurface features (e.g.,

January 24, 1992 w Do Not Quote or Cite

43

number and volume of tanks, lagoons,structures, and drums at the site).

• All known or suspected sources ofcontamination

• Types of contamination and affected media(including description of me quantity andtypes of hazardous substances present; theirvolume; whether they are carcinogens ornoncarcinogens; the lateral and verticalextent of contamination; their mobility; andsurface and subsurface pathways ofmigration)

• Routes of contaminants) of concern,migration, and all known current routes ofhuman and environmental exposure

• Concentrations (e.g., average and maximum)of contaminants of concern in each medium

• Population "and' "environmental areas thatcould be affectedfay the contaminants) ofconcern at me site

• Any site-specific factors (e.g., fracturedbedrock) that may affect the remedial actionsat the site

In addition to the above components of thissection, for ground-water actions, this sectionshould also include:

• A description of the aquifers of concern(currently and potentially affected), includingground-water flow directions/pattern(vertical and horzontal), any unusual ground-water flow patterns (e.g., fracturalbedrock), and ground-water classification(e.g., class Ha, current drinking watersupply).

• A description of the interconnection betweenground water and surface water

• Presence of non-aqueous phase liquids(NAPLs).

5>0"5

63.6 Summary of Site Risks o.sim,*w^

The summary of the baseline riskTsSSessin the ROD should indicate the risks to hihealth and the environment that are or maposed by the conditions at the site.information necessary to write this sunnshould be available in the risk assess;chapter of the RI/FS Report. Appropsummary paragraphs or tables in the RReport may be used directly to serve as (he Ifor the ROD discussion of the baselineassessment. The RI/FS chapter describingrisk assessment (or the risk assessidocument, if presented separately) shoukreferenced.

The information presented in the summarsite risks should support the decision toremedial action when there is an actualpotential threat of release. Alternatively, v.no action will be taken, the data and narr?discussion should support that decision. ••Chapter 9 of this guidance for writing no acRODs.) The description of the baselineassessment should also address me expo-pathways and risks, so that the "SununanComparative Analysis of Alternatives" latethe ROD can clearly demonstrate howreductions resulting from the rem&alternatives are related directly to the expospathways and baseline risks (see Section 6.^"Summary of the Comparative AnalysisAlternatives").

Human Health Risks

Only a brief summary of the infonnatdeveloped in the risk assessment shouldpresented in the ROD. Information shouldpresented so that the selected remedy willsupported and individuals unfamiliar withsite can understand the basis for undertakremedial action. A mixture of (1) text fan(e.g.. for describing the exposure pathways ;the risks) and (2) table format (e.g.,presenting lists of contaminants) of concern trisk numbers) may be used in the summary. ;Highlight 19 for standard language to be usec


an introduction for this section. Furtherguidance on the summary and presentation ofcarcinogenic risk and for noncarcinogenic effectsis currently being developed in the revisions tothe Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual(Part A) (Interim Final, EPA/540/1-89/002,December 1989).

Highlight 19: Sample Languagefor Human Health Risks

Summary

The baseline risk assessment pro-vides the basis for taking action andindicates the exposure pathways thatneed to be addressed by theremedial action. It serves as thebaseline indicating what risks couldexist if no action were taken at thesite. This section of the RODreports the results of the baselinerisk assessment conducted for thissite. • --

The discussion of risks in the ROD shouldbe parallel to the major areas that are discussedin the sections of the risk assessment: identifica-tion of contaminants) of concern, exposureassessment, toxicity assessment, and risk charac-terization. The primary focus should be onthose exposure pathways and contaminants) ofconcern found to pose actual or potential threatsto human health.

Contaminants) of concern identificationmfor.nation should include brief descriptions ofthe following:

• Contaminants) of concern in each medium(e.g., benzene in soils; TCE in groundwater) and exposure point concentrations foreach medium. The upper confidence limiton the arithmetic mean, or a maximumconcentration, and the areas that should beincluded for exposure point concentrations.

• Current land use (e.g.. residential,industrial) at the site and basis (e.g., zoningmaps, nearby development).

• Current or potential use of the ground water(e.g., potential drinking water, currentirrigation use).

• Type of future land use expected at the siteand basis (e.g., zoning maps, 20-yeardevelopment plans).

Exposure assessment information shouldinclude brief discussions of the following:

• The potentially exposed populations) incurrent and potential scenarios (e.g., workercurrently working on site, adults andchildren living on site in the future)

• The special subpopulations, if any (e.g.,children, subsistence fishermen, andfamilies)

• Reasonable exposure pathways affecting eachpopulation group or subpopulation group(e.g., ingestion of contaminated groundwater for adults and children, inhalation ofvolatiles for workers)

• The monitoring or modeling data andassumptions used to characterize exposurepoint concentrations

• The major assumptions about exposure fre-quency and duration that were included inthe exposure assessment (e.g., frequency ofexposure of 180 days/year, duration of 70years, and contact rate for dermal exposure).

The exposure assessment in the RI/FS Reportincludes reasonable maximum estimates for bothcurrent and future exposure scenarios. Whenthis information is available, descriptions ofcurrent and future exposures should be includedin the ROD.

The ROD should indicate whether or not theexposure was quantified through the use of the


LI mil u

standard exposure factors and scenarios asdefined in Human. Health Evaluation Manual,Supplemental Guidance: Standard DefaultExposure Factors (OSWER Directive 9285.6-03)or the use of site-specific factors. If thestandard default exposure factors are not used,an explanation of why and what site-specific datawere used should be included.

Highlight 20: EPA Weigl@f-Evidence Classification Sy;

for Carcinogenicity

Group Description

information shouldToxidty assessmentinclude the following:

• Chronic daily intake (CDI) factor for eachchemical within each relevant exposurepathway for a given population at risk andassumptions under which the CDI wascalculated (e.g., exposure pointconcentrations, land use-based media-specificintake rates, frequencies and durations)(e.g., 9xl0"2 mg/kg/day exposure pointconcentration of TCE in ground water)

• Brief explahation'of the toxicity informationthat was used to calculate the risk including,as appropriate, the slope factor (i.e., cancerpotency factor), weight of evidence (i.e., theextent to which the available data indicatethat an agent is a human carcinogen),reference dose. reference concentration, andthe source of toxicity information where therisk values were taken, such as IRIS,HEAST.

• Brief list of the health effects of concern forthe noncarcicogenic contaminants of concern

Highlight 20 provides the EPA weight-of-evidence classification system forcarcmogenicity. The standard language inHighlight 21 should be included in the ROD toexplain the derivation and use of the slopefactors and reference doses.

Risk characterization information shouldinclude the following for both current and futureland-use scenarios:

• Quantified carcinogenic risks of eachcontaminant of concern in each relevant

Human carcinogenProbable human carcinogen

ABlorB2

Bl indicates that limited dataare available.B2 indicates sufficient evi-dence in animals and inade-quate or no evidence inhumans.Possible human carcinogenNot classifiable as to humancarcinogenicity

CD

E Evidence of noncarcinogeni-city for humans

exposure medium for each exposure pamv(e.g., lifetime excess cancer risk of 3x1due to benzene in ground water)

• Combined carcinogenic risks reflectingcontaminants) of concern and pathw;reasonably expected to affect a givpopulation (e.g., the carcinogenic riskchildren playing at a residence who mayexposed by ingesting soil or drinking loground water is 5 x 10'2)

• Potential for noncarcinogenic effects as id(tiffed by the hazard quotient for eacontaminant of concern in each exposimedium for each exposure pathway,appropriate, (e.g., direct contact ofchildrto contaminated soil is associated withhazard quotient of 15; indicatingunacceptable concentration of naphthalene

• Potential for combined noncarcinogereffects, as expressed by hazard indicewhich reflect the additive effects 1


reasonable combinations of contaminants) ofconcern and exposure pathway combinationsfor specific population groups

Highlight 21: Sample Language forToxidty Assessment Summary

Slope factors (SFs) have been developed byEPA's Carcinogenic Assessment Group forestimating excess lifetime cancer risksassociated with exposure to potentially car*cmogcnic contaminants) of concern. SFs,which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)"1, are multiplied by the estimatedintake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate ofme excess lifetime cancer risk associatedwith exposure at that intake level. Toeterm "upper bound1' reflects theconservative estimate of the risks calculatedfrom the SF. Use of this approach makes•underestimation of. the actual cancer riskhighly unlikely. 'Sfope factors are derivedfrom the results of human epidemiologicalstudies orT'chronic" animal bioassays towhich animal-to-human extrapolation anduncertainty factors have been applied (e.g.,to account for the use of animal data topredict effects on humans).

Reference doses (RfDs) have beendeveloped by EPA for indicating thepotential for adverse health effects fromexposure to contaminants) of concernexhibiting noncarcinogcnic effects. RfDs,which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day,are estimates of lifetime daily exposurelevels for humans, including sensitiveindividuals. Estimated intakes ofcontaminants) of concern from environ-mental media (e.g., the amount of a con-taminants) of concern ingested from con-taminated drinking water) can be comparedto the RfD. RfDs are derived from humanepidemiological studies or animal studies towhich uncertainty factors have been applied(e.g., to account for the use of animal datato predict effects on humans).

• Brief explanation of the meaning of both thequantitative risk characterization andqualitative statements

• Discussion of significant sources ofuncertainty inherent in the risk assessment

• Risk assessment conclusions based on datapresented and any other facts that thedecision maker should be made aware of thatmay affect risk to human health at sites(e.g., the presence of B2 carcinogenswithout quantitative toxicity numbers for riskcharacterization)

• Results of the baseline risk assessment (i.e.,risk that would remain if no action weretaken for the site or medium) based on the"reasonable maximum exposure scenario"

• Indication of whether or not the baseline riskis greater than the risk range for the site orfor any medium and justification for takingaction if the baseline risk is not greater thanthe risk range (e.g., current exposure to asensitive population).

The language in Highlight 22 should beincluded in the ROD to explain how cancer andnoncancer risks are characterized in the baselinerisk assessment.

As discussed previously, a combination oftext, tables, and graphic presentations of riskinformation is encouraged for presenting theinformation in this section.

Environmental Risks

The ROD should address the risks to theenvironment that were considered in the RVFSas well as human health risks. Procedures foraddressing ecological risks are not standardizedas they are for human health risk assessment.


Highlight 22: Sample Language for Risk Characterization Summary0

Per carcinogen^ risks KC estimated as the incremental probability of in individual developing cancer over a'life-time* result of exposure to the carcinogen. Excess Wxrtsme cancer risk is criculaied from the following equation:

Risk " CDI x SF

where:

riafc « a unit less probability (e.g., 2 x 10*5) of an individual developing cancer;

CDI — chrome daily intake averaged over 70 years (mg/kf-day); and

SF "• dope-factor, expressed as (mg/kg-day)'1

Theee risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in adessssSie notation (e.g., IxlO4 or IE'6). An excess lifedcancer risk of IxlO"6 indicates mat, as a reasonable maximum estimate, an iadividusi has a 1 m 1,000,000 chance ofdeveloping cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific expos;conditions at a site.

The potential for noncarcmogemc effects is evaluated by comparing an exposure level over a specified time period (e.life-time) with a reference doe® derived for a similar exposure period. The ratio of exposure to toxicity is called ahazard quodeot (HQ). By adding the HQs for all conlammaiet(s} of concern that affects the same target organ (e.g.,liver) within a medium or across all media to which a given population may reasonably be exposed. She Hazard Index(HI) can be genecatedr '—

The HQ is calculated as-followa:

Non-cancer HQ = CDI/RfD

where:

CDI - Chronic Daily Intake

RfD = reference dose; and

CDI and RfD are expressed m me same units and represent the same exposure period (i.e., chronic, subchronic, orshort-term).


The procedures and level of effort for theecological assessment vary significantlydepending on site-specific factors. The level ofeffort and detail in the ecological assessmentshould be the guide for the amount ofinformation that should be included in theROD.

The discussion of the ecological risks in theROD should be parallel to the major sections ofthe assessment. The major sections ofecological assessments usually include:identification of contaminants of concern,exposure assessment, ecological effectsassessment and risk characterization. However.depending upon the type of assessmentconducted, the sections of the ecologicalassessment may vary. The following addressesthe basics of an ecological assessment. Theprimary focus should be on those exposurepathways and contaminant(s) of concern found topose actual or potential threats to theenvironment. RODs should include thefollowing information.. to the extent they werediscussed in toe ecological assessment.

Identification of C^n^minants of Concern

The identification may include briefdescriptions of the following:

• The media of concern (e.g., soils, surfacewater, sediments)

• The contaminants) of concern chosen foreach medium

Exposure Assessment

Exposure assessment information mayinclude brief discussions of the following items:

• Characterization of the ecological setting(e.g., wetland, valley), on and near the siteincluding aquatic and terrestrial habitats,habitat maps, and related field surveyinformation). This includes identification ofany ecologically sensitive areas.

• List of species that were the potentialreceptors that were evaluated in theecological assessment and a statement aboutwhy they were chosen. This includesidentification of Federal or state designatedrare, endangered, and threatened species.

• Exposure pathways for receptor populationsor selected species.

• Exposure point concentrations.

• The monitoring or modeling data andassumptions used to characterize exposurepoint concentrations.

• Summary of any field studies conducted toestablish exposures (e.g., biomarkers. tissueanalyses).

Ecological Effects Assessment

Information may include the following:

• Summary of the results of any field studiesused to measure adverse ecological effects(e.g., macroinvertebrate studies, aquatic, soiland/or sediment toxicity tests)

• Brief explanation of toxicity endpointschosen for the assessment (e.g., lethalconcentration in which 50% of populationdies (LC50). maximum acceptable toxicantconcentration (MATC), reproductiveimpairment).

Ecological Risk Characterization Information

Information may include the following:

• Summary of the results of any field studiesshowing ecological risks

• Brief summary of the environmental risksassociated with the relevant media, the basisof these risks, and how these risks weredetermined (e.g., comparison of predictedexposure and toxicity, field studies)


• Discussion of significant sources ofuncertainty inherent in the risk assessment

The Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfimd:Environmental Evaluation Manned (Interim FinalOSWER Directive 9285.7-01, March 1989)provides additional information about theenvironmental evaluation.

In addition, for all RODs, except thoseselecting "no action" and those where this con-clusion is not valid given the circumstances atthe site, the "Summary of Site Risks" section ofthe Decision Summary should conclude withstatement (or language similar to the statement)contained in the "Assessment of the Site" sectionof me Declaration, as shown in HigMight 23.

Highlight 23: Sample Language ForSummary of Site Risks

Actual or threatened releases of hazardoussubstances from this site, if not addressedby implementing" the response actionselected in this ROD, may present animminent and substantial endangerment topublic health, welfare, or theenvironment.

Highlight 24 shows a sample summary of siterisks.

6.3.7 Description of Alternatives

This section provides a concise descriptionof how each alternative would address thecontamination at the site or operable unit fromthe beginning of the remedy to its completion.This description should explain the treatmentand/or engineering controls (e.g., containment)components of each alternative as they logicallyoccur in the proposed remediation process.When describing a particular treatment orcontainment alternative, the general treatmentfamily or containment objectives could bedescribed. Specific process options within thosecategories can be described if there is confidence

C ithat the options will be used. For example, ai Oalternative should be described as employing'"?thermal destruction rather than rotary kilrf"^incineration or infrared incineration. In the^3

•C—3same way, a containment option that employs a -"'RCRA Subtitle C cap should specify theobjectives of the cap (e.g., reducing thepermeability by covering the site with animpermeable layer), rather than the specific typeof liner that could achieve that objective (e.g..synthetic liner, PVC).

The flow chart in Highlight 25 illustrates thedetails outlined in Section 6.3.8 that should beincluded in these descriptions. Please note thatit may be appropriate to describe the samecomponents of a number of alternatives once.Highlight 26 lists the details that should bedescribed for each alternative. In particular, itshould incorporate the major ARARs associ-ated with a remedial alternative in laying outexactly how the waste will be handled. Eithera positive or a negative determination shouldbe made for the alternatives involving man"agement of a RCRA waste regarding theapplicability or relevance and appropriatenessof the RCRA LDRs. Highlight 27 contains asample of a remedial alternative, based 6ii thehypothetical site in Appendix A, that illustratesthe level of detail appropriate for this section.

Highlight 28 lists the major potentialARARs for Superfund remedies that may needto be discussed in describing alternatives.

By providing a comprehensive description ofthe alternatives in this section, the comparativeanalysis of alternatives (which is the next sectionof the ROD) can focus on the differences orsimilarities among alternatives with respect tothe nine evaluation criteria (see Section 6.3.8,"Summary of Comparative Analysis ofAlternatives"). In addition, this initialdescription of the selected remedy shouldprovide engineering details that will support theremedial design phase.


• /ContaminanLs Chronic Daily ' Cancer Noncancerof Intake (CDI) Risk RfD Hazard Index

Total Exposure Point Exposure Pathway Concern SF Source (mg/kg-day) ,SF2 ; ; (CDI x SF) (mg/kg^ay) (CDI/RfH)

Nearby Residential (1) Ground water Benzene IRIS 1.3793 0.029 4 x Iff2

Population ingestion(wells)

PATHWAY TOTAL 4 x Iff2

(2) Soil Benzene IRIS 0.2759 0.029 8 x Iff3

ingestion

Chromium Potentid noncircinogcnic effects from ingcation of contaminated •oils nuy «lso exist

PATHWAY TOTAL 8 x Iff3

TOTAL RISK FOR AN INDIVIDUALIN NEARBY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION 4.8 x 10-2

Distant Public Water (1) Ground water [Table should continue for each total exposure point, ptthway of exposure, and chemical of concern.]Supply Users ingestion

1 Values are for illustration only.2 Slope factors arc as of FY90, 4th Quarter.

SF = Slope Factor.RfD =3 Reference Dose.MEK «= Methyl ethyl ketone.


OU0964

Highlight 25: Illustration of Components of Alternatives to be Described

Metal-contaminated Soils

Approximately11,000 yd 3

Contaminated ,Soil In

Lagoon/TankFarm Area

• Approximately 7,5(VOC-contaminaletiHoi SpotsTCE: 140ppmBenzene: 40 ppm

• Approximalaly 3,5CHeavyMelal-contamlnate<SoilsCd+3: 17ppm

Cr-3: 12 ppm

• Carcinogenicrisk level

————^

30yd3

1

)0yd3

d

Excavaltonof approximately

7.500 yd3 of .VOC-

contamlnatedHot Spots

• Amount determinatedby fate andtransport modelingand

• Sampling andanalyeJs duringexcavation procea»

LovTemp«Volallllz

I volalUeOrgan

ActivatedCarbon

Canisters

09%RemovalEfficiency1

AirEmissions

1 / .'•' '

i;

Hatweallon

TreatedSoilResiduals

—————^

cs

SpentCanlateffl

—————^

'SlablJIzfttion

Inlagoon/T«nk

Farm Ar»a

Oft.Sft*Submit cDIspoud

———»•

• Long-term O&M• C^plrrtegrtty• GWMooftoring

-.. ExpoyJftLevri 10-• OMd Rwlrictfons• EfDmafd CapM

Ccrtt $4.7M• E»tinTl«dAnnu>10

(41.000

LandflllCtotureof

Logoon/TanhFarm Area

6

AM

Highlight 26: Description of Details for Each Alternative

Treatment components. Describe the following, is appropriate;

Treatment technologies (e.g., thermal destruction) that will be usedType and estimated volume of emissions/residuals expectedType and estimated volume of waste treatedPrimary treatment levels (e.g., BOAT, percentage or order of magnitude of reductions expected) and tfaebasis (e.g., ARARs, risk-baaed levels) for selection of me treatment levelIf appropriate, risks associated with emissions/residuals.

Contaiament or, g»gej:<^npopenta. Describe the following, as appropriate:

Type of storage (e.g., landfill, tank, surface impoundment, cocOuncrs)Type of closure that will be implemented (e.g., RCRA Subtitle C clean closure, landfill closure. Subtitle Dsolid waste closure)Type and quantity of waste to be storedType and quaniity of untreated waste and/or treatment residuals to be disposed of off-site or managed on-sitc in a containment system (e.g., cap, nan. tech. unit)

For ground-water actions;

— Define areas to be contained aerially and vertically— Alternate performance standards.

Gnjund-wjter component. Describe the following, as appropriate:

— Ground-water classification (e.g.. Class I, II, or IS)— Remediation and residual levels (e.g., MCLs)— Estimated restoration tuneframe and xmplemeotaiion reports— Area of attainment— Technologies/treatment trains that will be used— Volume of residuals to be treated— Approximate number of extraction wells and approximate pumping rate, where appropriate— Assumptions, limitations, and/or uncertainties (regarding effectiveness of me remedy)— Fully Cracking all waste identified on the site to its final destination, including treatment residuals, if

generated,

The major_ARARs, rislg-based levels, and trther^tobe cons dereds"^ rTBCa)* beag met/utilized forthe; specificcomponents of me waste management process:

— How the specific components of the alternative will or will not comply with me major ARARs— Why the standard is applicable or relevant and appropriate (e.g., placing a RCRA characteristic waste, thus

RCRA closure is applicable)— A positive or negative determination for the U>Rs; ARARs for residuals management; RCRA closure;

Endangered Species Act; CWA; Stale ARARs.

FBCs are non-promulgated advisories, criteria, or guidance issued by Federal or state governments that are notgaily enforceable standards. TBCs may also include proposed regulations. Before the lead agency proposes toilize a TBC, it should obtain me support agency's agreement on the appropriateness of the TBC(s).

(Continued on next page.)


Highlight 26: Description of Details for Each Alternative (continued)

General components. Describe the following, as appropriate, for each of the threepreviouS^components: (np

wS

f"^- Contaminated media addressed (and quantities and physical location et the site) "- Whether treatability testing has been or will be conducted- Implementation requirements- Institutional controls- Assumptions, limitations, uncertainties- Estimated implementation timcframe- Estimated capital, operation and maintenance and present-worth costs- Information en physical effects on the cavircniBeat caused by implementation of each alternative

and efforts to be taken to rmmmi^g such effects- If applicable, provisions for ground-water monitoring once the system is shut off to ensure goals

are maintain^,

January 16, 1992 * * * Do Not Quote or Cite54

Highlight 27: Sample Description of a Remedial Alternative

Alternative S4: Excavation of Contaminated Soils and Sediments. Incineration,Solidification. and On-site Disposal of Residuals

Major Components of the Remedial Alternative. The major features of this alternative includeexcavation of approximately 13,000 cubic yards of benzene- and chromium-contaminated soil andsediments from the lagoon area and the neighboring wetland; off-site incineration; solidification ofthe treatment residuals in the lagoon area; and RCRA Subtitle C landfill closure of the area.

Treatment Components: The amount of contaminated soil and sediments that will be excavatedin the lagoon area was determined using fate and transport modeling to estimate the potentialground-water contamination. The ground water contamination could result from the migration ofsoil contaminants) of concern remaining in the lagoon area. The contaminated soils andsediments will be incinerated offsttc. Because it is anticipated that incineration will not meet theLDR treatment standard of 3.7 mg/1 (using a total waste analysis) for benzene, a TreatabilityVariance for soil and debris will be obtained. Tins Variance will establish alternate trcatm-ntlevels.

For the ground-water component of the remedy, benzene-contaminated ground water willbe pumped and treated using carbon adsorption. Residuals will be discharged to a POTW.Ground water will be pumped at a rate of approximately 5*000 gallons per day usingapproximately Jour extraction wells. Treatment of the ground water will take an estimated 18 -24 months. Ground water will be treated to a level of 0.01 mg/1 before discharge to the POTWand to aJevcl oM.005 mg/1 by the POTW. Theae levels are based on Federal Water QualityCriteria and Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for benzene, respectively. Treatment will bemonitored to ensure that rcmediation goals are achieved.

Containment Components: The residual ash and treated soils (approximately 5,000 cubic yards)would be solidified in the lagoon area in compliance with the LDR treatment standard forchromium of 0.5-6ppm. This 10-acrc area would be capped and closed as a RCRA Subtitle Clandfill in accordance with the requirements specified in 40 CFR 264.310 for landfill closure,which require a cap to have a. permeability less than or equal to the permeability of the naturalunderlying soil. Closure of the area also would comply with the State's more stringent RCRArequirements.

The cap will be designed and constructed to promote drainage, mini mi re erosion of thecover, and provide long-term minimization of migration of liquids through the underlyingcontaminated soils. Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 264.117. long-term operationand maintenance (O&M) would be conducted to monitor the ground water around the landfill andto ensure the integrity of the cap.

General Component: The estimated time to implement this remedy and to meet the cleanuplevels is 18 - 48 months for both remedy components. Institutional controls and ground-watermonitoring shall be implemented. The estimated costs for the soil and sediment component of theremedy are: Capital costs: $6,230,000; O&M costs: $41,000; Present worth: $6,860,270. Theestimated costs for the ground-water component of the remedy are: Capital costs: $3,240,000;O&M costs: $30,000; Present worth: $3,701,174. Some adverse effects on the habitats ofseveral species will occur because of disturbance of the wetlands during excavation. Efforts willbe made to mini mi ye these effects.


Highlight 28: Examples of ARARs That Should be Includedin Description of Alternatives Where Appropriate

Safe Drinldng Water Act (SDWA)

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)- MCL Goals (MCLGs)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C (Hazardous Waste Requirements)

Cloiurc (i.e., landfill or clean closure)Minimum Technology RequirementsLand Dixpox&l Restriction!

RCRA Subtitle D (Solid Waste Requirements)

Clean Water Act

- Federal Water Quality Criteria (FWQC)

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Polychlorinted biphcnyls (PCB) standards

Clean Air Act (CAA)

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQs)

State ARARa.

January 24, 1992 *!>:* Do Not Quote or Cite56

6.3.8 Summary of the ComparativeAnalysis of Alternatives

This analysis should summarize thecomparative analysis of alternatives presented inthe detailed analysis section of the RI/FS Report.The RI/FS Guidance contains additionalinformation on the subfactors included in each ofthe nine criteria. (These subfactors are alsoreflected in Highlight 5 in this guidance and inthe worksheets in Appendix C.) These factorsshould be addressed, when appropriate, indescribing and evaluating alternatives. Thecomparative analysis provides the basis forexplaining how the selected remedy satisfies thestatutory requirements described in Section6.3.10 (specifically, the cost-effectiveness andutilization of permanent solutions and treatmentto the maximum extent practicable ["MEP"]findings). In addition, this section shouldprovide the basis for determining whichalternative provides the "best balance" of trade-offs with respect to~the five primary balancingcriteria-

Threshold Criteria

1) Overall protection of human health andthe environment

2) Compliance with applicable or relevantand appropriate requirements.

Primary Balancing Criteria

3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence4) Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or

volume through treatment5) Short-term effectiveness6) Implementability7) Cost.

Modifying Criteria

8) State/support agency acceptance9) Community acceptance.

The major objective of this section of theROD is to evaluate the relative performance ofthe alternatives with respect to the criteria so

that the advantages and disadvantages associated 0with each cleanup option are clearly understood. s>*The most effective way of organizing this ^analysis is to present a series of paragraphs ^headed by each criterion. Under each criterion, ^the alternative that performs best in that categoryis discussed first, with the other optionsdiscussed in sequence from most to least advan-tageous2. The comparative analysis sectionshould include an explanation of each criterion.These explanations can be included under theappropriate criterion heading or together as anintroductory paragraph. Highlight 29 shows anexample of a comparative analysis based on thehypothetical site in Appendix A.

In addressing the long-term effectivenessand permanence of an alternative, long-termeffectiveness should be viewed along acontinuum. Alternatives that are moreeffective in the long-term are morepermanent; however, the term "permanence"should not be used to describe an alternative.Rather, an alternative should be describedonly in terms of "long-term effectiveness."

Only reductions achieved throughtreatment should be addressed under the"reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volumethrough treatment" criterion. Reductions ofmobility accomplished through containmentshould be addressed under "overall protectionof human health and the environment." Theworksheets in Appendix C may be used tohelp prepare the comparative analysissummary.

63.9 The Selected Remedy

The remainder of the Decision Summaryfocuses on the selected remedy. This section ofthe ROD should identify and summarize themajor treatment components of the selectedremedy, as well as any engineering controls(e.g., containment) or institutional controls thatwill be part of the remedy. This section of theROD should discuss the:

January 16, 1992-*** Do Not Quote or Cite57

Highlight 29: Sample Comparative Analysis - Soil Wastes ^

Overall Protection of Human Health andfee Environment

Overall protection of hucam health and tfac environment addresses whether each alternative provides JS^wsfs-protection of human health and the environment and describes how risks posed through each exposure pu&Swsty. areeliminated, reduced, or controUed, through treatment, eagineering controls, »ad/or institutionxl codrols.

All of the alternatives, except Ac no-action aBternadve, are protective of humaa health and the enviroiuneat byelimiaaticg, reducing, or controlling risk through treatment of soil coctammaflts, engineering controls, and/orinstitutional controls. Since the no-action alterasMve does not eliminate, reduce or coserol any of tfac exposurepathways, it is therefore not protective of human health or the cavironmegst and will not be considered further in thianalysis as an cpdon for the soil wastes.

Alternative S2, which involves offsuSs ioemeiation and offBite disposal of soil, is protective of human health aceenvironment because BO well wastes remain oaaiSs. Alternatives S3, S4, and S5 reduce the lisle from conttmirated :through a combination of treaSas-afi and cootunmest (S3 and S4) or through coBtvasaesSt only (S5). The instittitioias.controls associated with alternatives S3, 84, and 55 mmmazc site usage through deed restrictions and, therefore, nilreduce exposure to contamuymts remaiBaBg onsitc.

Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate ReQuireiBenEs_(ARA.Rs)

Compliance with ARARs addresses whe&er a remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements of other Federal and stale environcBealal statutes or provides a basis for a invoking waiver.

All alternatives would attain their respective Federal and state ARARs. It is unlikely that the treatment inalternatives S2 and S4 would meet the LDR treatmeat standards; therefore, a Treatabuity Variance for soil and debriwastes would be obtained to comply with the LDRs.

Long-Term Effectiveness and^Pennaneoce

Long-term effectiveness and penaaaeace refers to expected residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintainireliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup levels have been met. This criterioincludes the consideration of residual risk and the adequacy and rclifflbiliEy of controls.

Alternative S2 affords the highest degree of long-term effectiveness because all cootamimted soil would beexcavated, treated, and disposed of offsite thereby eliminating operxdon and maintenance requirements. .Alternativesand S4 are effective in the long-term because both alternatives use treatment and solidific&tion to reduce hazards poseby site conOinmaats. While risk from soil contaaainated with benzene would be eliminated after implementation of nalternatives, the long-term risks of exposure to me remaining chromium contaminants would be reduced by stabilizingand capping the residuals. Proper maintenance of the cap, along wim institutional controls, is necessary to ensurelong-term effectiveness of these alternatives. Alternative S2 leaves sll of the contaminated waste at the site and relicssolely on a cap and institutional controls to prevent exposure. This alternative also has cap mainSe^mce requirementwhich are highly critical to the eSectivenesa of this remedy since all of the waste remains umder (he cap without priortreatment. Therefore, mis alternative is not very effective in me long term.

Reduction ofT'oxicitv^Mobuitvor Volume ThroijgiiLTreatgient

Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment refers to iae anticipated performance of the trc»toietechnologies a remedy may employ.

All of the soil/sediment alternatives except alternative S5 treat the wastes to reduce the toxicity, mobility or voiuof me benzene. Alternatives S2 and S4 use incineration, and alternative S3 uses in-siiu soil vapor extraction to treat tsous. Both incineration and in-situ soil vapor extraction will reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of thecontaminants. Treatment residuals containing chromium are solidified in each alternative thereby increasing wastevolume somewhat, but reducing contaminant toxicity and mobility. Alternative S5 does net use treatment technologiebut instead uses a cap to contain the soil contamination, therefore the mobility is reduced.


Highlight 29: Sample Comparative Analysis — Soil Wastes

Shji^-Tenm Effectiveness

Short-tenn effectiveness refers to the period of time needed to complete the remedy and any adverse impacts onhuman health and the environment that may be posed during the construction and implementation of the remedy untilcleanup levels are achieved.

Alternative S5, containment, would require me least amount of time to implement, compared with ths othersoil/sediment alternatives. Implementation of alternatives S2 and S4 would require less time then alternative S3, becauseincineration requires less time to implement than mil vapor extraction.

Alternatives S2, S4, and S5 include excavation and capping and, therefore, could pose short-term risks of exposureto volarilcs and pardculate emissions during excavation and cap coosttucdoia. Alternative S3 also could cause the releaseof vclatiles during soil vapor extraction. Because me capacity of offiritc iociaencors is limited, under alternatives S2 andS4, contaminated soils could be stoclfpiled for up to two years, increasing the risk of direct contact with thecontaminants. In addition, there are some risks of exposure to air emissions from the incinerator as well as short-termrisk associated with the offirite transportation of the excavated soil.


• Selected remedy, the general technologytype, or, if applicable, the specific processoption

• Cleanup levels to be attained at theconclusion of the response action and thepoints of compliance for the media beingaddressed (e.g.. MCL& will be met at theedge of the waste management area)

• Performance standards for all contaminantsof concern

• Lead agency's basis for the cleanup levels(e.g., ARARs, risk calculation)

• Management of residuals and the type andquantity of residuals that will be generated ifappropriate

• State requirements that are ARARs, if any.

If more than one area at the site is beingaddressed (e;g.. treatment and landfilling ofresiduals), ^this section of the ROD shou;.iidentify the cleanup levels for each area. Atable may be included in this section of the RODto summarize the cleanup levels goals for eacharea or medium. Highlight 30 provides anexample of a selected remedy, based on thehypothetical site in Appendix A.

The discussion of the selected remedy in thissection of the ROD should expand upon thedetails of the remedy from the Description ofAlternatives discussed in Section 6.3.7. Oneaspect of the selected remedy that should bedescribed in detail is the estimated costs of theremedial action. The estimated capital costs ofeach major treatment and containmentcomponent of the selected remedy should beidentified, along with an indication of thevolume of material that each component willaddress and the estimated unit costs.Contingencies should also be listed. Estimatedoperation and maintenance costs should be statedin terms of estimated annual costs, and the totalnet present value should be presented.Highlight 31 illustrates the type of cost

C^£>

estimates to be included for the^emedyin Highlight 30. This sectSoS of tishould mention that me reme^ maysomewhat as a result of the renteaial deconstruction processes. The RODinclude a clear statement that such chageneral, reflect modifications resulting iengineering design process. It shoiaddress uncertainties as to the remedy athe goals, and. if appropriate, conimeasures.

In addition to the elements recommethe Description of Alternatives sectifollowing elements of the selectedshould be addressed, as appropria;ground-water remedies: expected pumpflow rates; estimated number of extractioestimated time frames; cleanup levels; trprocesses; methods of control for crosimpacts; gradient control systemperformance evaluations and schedule; Lto which extracted ground water will bebefore discharge.

63.10 Statutory Determinations

Once the selected remedy hasidentified, the ROD Decision Summaryconclude with a description of how the Eremedy meets the statutory requiremeCERCLA section 121. The remedy selethe lead agency, in consultation with theagency, must:

* Be protective of human health aenvironment

* Comply with ARARs (or justify anwaiver)

* Be cost-effective

0 Utilize permanent solutions and altetreatment technologies or resource retechnologies to the maximumpracticable


Highlight 30: Sample Selected Remedy Section

THE SELECTED REMEDY

Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the detailed analysis of the alternativesusing the nine criteria, and public comments, both EPA and the State have determined that acombination of Alternatives S4 (excavation, iridneraticn, solidification, and capping) and G2(pump and treat by carbon adsorption and discharge to a POTW) is the most appropriate remedyfor the HO Industrial Site in Nameless. TN.

Approximately 13,000 cubic yards of benzene- and chromium-contaminated soil and sediments willbe excavated from the lagoon area and the neighboring wetland. The benzene in the soil will beincinerated. The treated soils will be solidified and then returned to the excavated lagoon area. Thedisposal area will be regraded, revegetated, and capped in accordance with Federal and staterequirements for RCRA landfill closure. The estimated costs for this component of the remedy are:Capital costs: $6.230,000; O&M costs: $41,000; Present worth: $6,860,270.

Ground water will be pumped at a rate of approximately 5,000 gallons per day usingapproximately four extraction wells. Water will be treated using carbon adsorption. Treated waterwill be discharged to a POTW. Estimated costs for this component of the remedy are: Capital costs:$3.240,000; O&M costs: $30,000; Present worth: $3,701,174.

Cleanup Levels •"- —

The purpose of-this response action is to control risks posed by direct contact with soils,sediments, and ground water and to imninnw migration of contaminants to ground water. The resultsof the baseline risk assessment indicate that existing conditions at the site pose an excess lifetimecancer risk of 8 x 10'3 from direct contact with contaminated soils and sediments and 4 x 10'2 fromingestion of contaminated ground water. This risk relates to the benzene concentrations in soil,sediment, and ground water. This remedy will address all soils contaminated with benzene in excessof 0.00001 ppm and chromium in excess of 110 ppm. Benzene contamination remaining in soils at0.00003 mg/kg corresponds to an excess lifetime cancer risk of 10'6 through each route of exposure.Since no Federal or state ARARs exist for soil, the action level for the benzene and chromium in soilwas determined through a site-specific analysis. This analysis used fate and transport modeling todetermine levels to which benzene and chromium in soils should be reduced in order to ensure noleaching of contaminants) of concern to ground water above 0.5 - 6 ppm. These soil cleanup levelswill also be protective at the 10 excess cancer risk level for each chemical of concern.

This remedy will also address ground water contaminated with benzene in excess of 0.005 mg/I.Ground water will be treated to a level of 0.01 mg/1 before discharge to the POTW and to a level of0.005 mg/I by the POTW. This level, which corresponds to a lifetime cancer risk of 1 x IQr6, isbased on Federal Water Quality Criteria and MCLs for benzene. State water quality standards that arepromulgated are not more stringent than this level, MCLs will be met at the discharge of the waterfrom the POTW. Treatment will be monitored to ensure that cleanup levels are achieved.


^. . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' ! * • »

Highlight 31: Example Cost Summary for the Selected Remedy :^Estimated Costs of Selected Remedy W

—sm^

SOIL/SEDIMENT COMPONENTCapital Costs:

EstimatedTreatment Component Cubic Yards Cost per CY

13,000 $330Incineration

Containment Component

SolidificationLandfill closure of residuals

5,0005,000

$60120

(Contingencies @20%)

Operation and Maintenance Cost:

Landfill maintenance and ground-water monitoring around unit

Net Present Value calculated using a 5% discount value over a 30-year period

GROUND WATER COMPONENTCapital Costs:

Estimated Treatment Component Gallons Cost per Gal,

Carbon Adsorption 100,000 $20Discharge to POTW 100,000 7

(Contingencies at 20%)

Operation and Maintenance Cost:

Ground water monitoring

Net Present Value calculated using a 5% discount value over a 30-ycar period

Cost

$4,290,000

300.000600.000

$5,190,000

1.038.000$6,228.000

Annual Cost

$ 41,000

$6,860.270

Cost

$2.000,000700,000

$2.700,000

540,000$3,240.000

Annual Cost

$ 30,000

$ 3,701,174

TOTALS

Capital CostsOperation and Maintenance CostPresent Value

$ 9,468,00071,000

10,561,444


• Satisfy the preference for treatment thatreduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as aprincipal element, OR explain why thispreference is not satisfied.

A brief, site-specific description of how theselected remedy satisfies each of the statutoryrequirements should be provided in this sectionof the ROD.

Protection of Human Health and theEnvironment: This section of the ROD shoulddescribe how the selected remedy will provideadequate protection of human health and theenvironment through treatment, engineeringcontrols, and/or institutional controls.Specifically, the remedy should be described interms of how the existing or potential risksposed by the site or operable unit through eachpathway will be eliminated, reduced, orcontrolled by the response action. Thisdiscussion should also indicate mat exposurelevels will be reduced to within the EPA-acceptable risk range within which EPAmanages carcinogenic risk and that the HazardIndices for non-carcinogens will be less than1.0. Finally, this discussion should reflect thatthe implementation of the selected remedy willnot pose unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media impacts. If the remedy addressesenvironmental risks, then there should be a briefdiscussion of how the remedy is protective ofthe environment.

Compliance with Applicable or Relevantand Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).3

This section of the ROD should:

• State whether the selected remedy willcomply with all Federal ARARs and anymore stringent state ARARs, or whether anyARAR waiver will be used. If a waiver isinvoked, it should be identified and ajustification provided.

• List and briefly describe the ARARs thatwill be attained by the selected remedy.This list should be organized according tochemical-specific, location-specific, and

action-specific ARARs. Also, applicablerequirements should be distinguished fromthe relevant and appropriate requirements forthe RCRA LDRs and closure requirements,and other requirements, as necessary.

• List and briefly describe the TBCs (e.g..advisories, criteria, and guidances) beingused and me reason for their use.4

Highlight 32 is an example of how TBCscan be summarized.5

Highlight 32: Sample Language for TBCs

In unpiemcntmg the selected remedy, EPAand the State have agreed to consider anumber of procedures that are ARARs but areTBCs. These include the guidance ondesigning RCRA caps fDraft RCRA GuidanceDocument, t^odfillDesign. Uaer Systemsaad, EinaLCover. issued June 1982) and post-ing of a deed notice at the site after therenoediai action has been completed. Theguidance on designing RCRA caps includesspecifications to be followed in constructingand maintaining a RCRA cap. Deed restric-tions are institutional controls that will beenforced by the local government to ensurethat the RCRA cap is not disturbed.

For some remedies, more lengthy discussionof a statute or regulation is necessary. Forexample, the selected remedy could be one thatcomplies with the relevant and appropriaterequirements of both clean closure and landfillclosure under RCRA to fashion an "alternate"closure or a remedy for which LDRs areapplicable and a Treatability Variance is beingobtained.

Cost-Effectiveness: In this section, the leadagency should verify that the selected remedyaffords overall effectiveness proportional to itscosts, so that it represents a reasonable value forthe money spent. This section should state


briefly row the selected remedy appears to becost-effective, when the overall relationshipbetween cost and effectiveness is compared tothat for the other alternatives.

Utilization of Permanent Solutions andAlternative Treatment (or Resource Recovery)Techfloiogies to the Maximum ExtentPracticable (MET): This section describes therationale for ths remedy selected, explaininghow the remedy provides the best balance oftrade-offs among the alternatives with respect tothe evaluation criteria, particularly the fiveprimary balancing criteria. The summaryworksheets for conducting the comparativeanalysis, included in Appendix C of thisguidance, could be used in discussing thisdetermination.

The final remedy is selected from amongalternatives that meet bom the threshold criteria(protection of human health and the environmentand compliance "with ARARs or thosealternatives utilizing ARARs waivers). Theselection is Based on a determination of whichoption best balances the trade-offs among mealternatives as they relate primarily to thefollowing: long-term effectiveness andpermanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, orvolume through treatment; short-termeffectiveness; implementabiHty; and cost. Thosecriteria that distinguish the alternatives will bethe major trade-offs to be balanced in theselection decision. To the extent thatalternatives are comparable with respect to aparticular criterion (e.g.. all options providesimilar degrees of long-term effectiveness), thatcriterion is not a decisive factor in the selectionprocess. The degree to which each alternativehas state/support agency and communityacceptance also is a factor considered in medecision, along with the primary trade-offs.

This section of the ROD should discuss whythe selected remedy is believed to best meet theevaluation criteria, compared with the otheralternatives, and why it is the most appropriatesolution for the site. In identifying the alterna-tive that provides the best balance of tradeoffs,

• *»the decision maker also isjudgSigthe alteto be the one that utilizes permanent scand treatment technologies tfr'^he maextent practicable for that site.^he disiin this section should be organic as fol

• Provide a general statement that the sremedy utilizes permanent solutioltreatment technologies to the maextent practicable

• Highlight trade-offs among alterrelated to the five primary balancing c;which should be discussed in this(Note: This order is important bee;provides a hierarchy of importance):

- Long-term effectiveness and pennar- Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or \

through treatment- Short-term effectiveness- Implementability- Cost

• Discuss which of the five criteria wendecisive in the selection decision

• Describe how state and comracceptance were factored into the decmaking process.

The ROD should always makeaffirmative finding that the selected nmeets the statutory requirement topermanent solutions and treatment technoto the maximum extent practicable, even ia containment remedy. In this situatioextent of treatment found to be practicabletreatment at all. Therefore, where the seremedy does not employ any treatmeresource recovery technologies, the explaiof the rationale used in the decision sinclude the reasons for finding treatmentimpracticable.

Preference for Treatment as a PrirElement: In addition to the four stamandates discussed previously (i.e., proteness, compliance with ARARs, cost effe


ness, and use of permanent solutions), the statu-tory preference for treatment as a principalelement also should be addressed. In writing theROD, the manner in which the preference isaddressed will depend upon whether the selectedremedy uses treatment to address any of thethreats posed by the site (e.g., hot spots, con-taminated ground water). If the selected remedydoes not satisfy the statutory preference, theROD should explain why it does not do so (e.g.,large volumes of low-level contaminated waste).

Highlight 33 provides an example of astatutory determinations section (this example isbased on the hypothetical site in Appendix A).

63.11 Documentation of Significant Changes

To fulfill the requirements of CERCLAsection 117(b), the ROD should document anddiscuss the reasons for any significant changesmade to the selected-remedy from the time theProposed Plan and Kl/FS Report were releasedfor public comment to^the final selection of theremedy .(see Chapter 5 for a complete discussionon pre-ROD significant changes).

The documentation of significant changes canbe organized in the ROD in one of two ways,depending upon the nature of the changes.Where the significant change affects a feature ofthe preferred alternative (the selected remedy inthe ROD), the documentation should appear atthe end of the ROD. Where the significantchange entails changing from the preferredalternative to another alternative discussed in theProposed Plan, this should be documentedbefore to the description of alternatives.

This section of the ROD should identify thepreferred alternative from the Proposed Plan andshould indicate whether any significant changeswere made. If significant changes were made,the reasons for those changes should beexplained. If a significant change was made thatrequired issuance of a revised Proposed Plan andthe announcement of a new public commentperiod, the activities performed in compliance

with these requirements should be summarizedas well.

Highlight 34 includes examples of the threedifferent types of discussions that generallycould be included in this section of the ROD.These examples were developed frominformation presented in the Appendix A. Thefirst example is a case in which no significantchanges are made. The second is a case inwhich a significant change is made that is alogical outgrowth of the information originallypresented in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FSReport. In this second case, the only proceduralrequirement is to discuss the change in thissection of the ROD. The final example is a casein which a significant change is made that is nota logical outgrowth of the information in theRI/FS and the Proposed Plan. This thirdexample describes the additional publicparticipation activities that should be conductedafter the first Proposed Plan has been releasedfor public comment.

6.4 THE RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

The Responsiveness Summary, the thirdcomponent of the ROD, serves several purposes.First, it provides the lead agency decisionmakers with information about communitypreferences regarding both the remedialalternatives and general concerns about the site.Second, it demonstrates how public commentswere integrated into the decision-makingprocess. Third, it allows EPA to respond tocomments "on the record." This means that acourt reviewing the remedy will look to seewhether EPA has provided a reasonable responseto comments in the record and will not allownew presentation of evidence on those issues.An adequate responsivene&s summary isessential in defending RODs in judicialproceedings.

January 16, 1992 Do Not Quote or Cite65

Highlight 33: Sample Statutory Determinations Section


Under CERCLA section 121, EPA must select remedies that are protective of human healtE^md tbenvironment, comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (unless a statutory waiveJustified), are cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies orresource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes apreference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, to:or mobility of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The following sections discuss how the seleremedy meets these statutory requirements.

Protection of Human Health agd the Environment

The selected remedy protects human health and the environment through incineration of benzene- aichromium-ccmtaminated soil and sediments, stabilization of the treated soil and sediment in the lagoon aand capping the lagoon area. This area will be capped and closed in accordance with RCRA landfill ckrequirements to reduce the likelihood of migration of the contaminants) of concern.

Incineration of the contaminated soil and sediment will eliminate the threat of exposure to the mostmobile contaminants) of concern via direct contact with or ingestion of contaminated soil and sediment.The current cancer risks associated with these exposure pathways is 8 x 1(T3. By excavating thecontaminated soli and sediments and treating them in an incinerator, the cancer risks from exposure willreduced to less-thaa t x 10-6. This level falls within the EPA's acceptable risk range of Iff4 to 10-6. Estabilizing the residuals and closing the lagoon area as a landfill, the risks of exposure via direct contactbe further reduced. There are no. short-term threats associated with the selected remedy that cazmot bereadily controlled. In addition, no adverse cross-media impacts are expected from the remedy.

Pumping the ground water and treating it by carbon adsorption will eliminate the threat of exposurethrough ingestion of contammated ground water. The current risk associated with this pathway is4 x 10~2. By treating the ground water and then discharging it to a POTW, the cancer risks from expos-will be reduced to less than 1 x 10"6, which is within the EPA-acceptable risk range. There are no shorterm threats associated with the selected remedy that cannot be readily controlled. In addition, no advercross-media impacts are expected from the remedy.

Compliancewith ApplicablejjfJRelevant and AppropriateRequirements

The selected remedy of excavation, off-site incmeration, solidification, and capping of contaminatedand sediments and of pump and treat of ground water by carbon adsorption with discharge to a POTW vcomply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). The ARARs are prescntebelow.

Chemical-Specific ARARs:

• Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs (40 CFR Part 141)• Clean Water Act FWQC (Clean Water Act section 304)

Continued on next


Highlight 33: Sample Statutory Determinations Section (continued)

Location-specific ARARs:

• None.

Action-specific ARARs:

• Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment standards for benzene (40 CFR 268). Because it isnot expected that incineration will meet the LDR treatment standard for benzene, a TreatabilityVariance for soil and debris will be obtained,

• RCRA Subtitle C requirements for landfill closure (40 CFR 264.111 Subpart G). which specifya cap with a permeability less than or equal to the penaeability of any bottom liner or naturalsubsoils present at the site.

• 40 CFR 264.117(a)(l) Subpart G Post-Closure and Monitoring requirements for 30 years.

• Rules 4-2, 4-3. and 5-3 of the Tennessee Regulations for Control and Abatement of AirPollution, which affect actions that generate air emissions and odors.

• CWA Section 404 dredge and fill permit requirements for dredge and fill actions in navigablewaters (including wetlands).

• CWA indirect discharge requirements (40 CFR 122) for nondomestic discharges to PubliclyOwacd Treatment Works (POTW).

• Endangered Species Act, which requires that Federal agencies to ensure that their actions do notjeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species.

Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance To Be Considered for This Remedial Action (TBCs):

• EPA and the State have agreed to incorporate a non-promulgated local deed restriction toprohibit excavation at the site after the remedial action is complete.

• E.G. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, which requires that Federal agencies conduct anevaluation to assess the impacts of an action on wetlands.

Cost-Effectivenes

EPA believes this remedy will eliminate the risks to human health at an estimated cost of$10,561,444, therefore the selected remedy provides an overall effectiveness proportionate to its costs, suchthat it represents a reasonable value for the money that will be spent.

Continued on next page

January 24, 1992 M Do Not Quote or Cite67

00e"^

————————————————————————————————————Q.Highlight 33; Sample Statutory DetenmEiations Section (continued) "S3———————————————————————————————————————p^.

The selected remedy assures a much higher degree of certainly that the remedy will be effective iilong-term because of the significant reduction of the toxicity and mobility of the wastes achieved throiincineration of the soil and sediments and solidification of the residuals before capping. The ground-component of the remedy ensures a higher degree of certainty of effectiveness than the other remediesbecause the technology employed is known to be effective for organic-contaminated wastcwaters.

Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies for Resource RecoveryTechnologies) to the Maximum Exteqt_Pracdcable

EPA and the State of Tennessee have determined that die selected remedy represents the maxunuJTextent to which permanent solutions find treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective mannthe final source-control operable unit at tee EIO site. Of those alternatives that are protective of huma,health and the environment and comply with ARARs, EPA and the State have determined that mis seleremedy provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence, recin toxicity, mobility, or volume achieved through treatment, short-term effectiveness, impIementabiUty,while also considering the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element and considering statcommunity acceptance.

The selected remedy treats the principal threats posed by the soils and sediments, achieving significbenzene reductions. This remedy provides the most effective trcatmsnt of any of the alternatives consicand will cost less than off-site disposal. The selection of treatment of the contaminated soil is consistecwith program expectations that indicate that highly toxic and mobile wastes are a priority for treatmentoften necessary to ensure the long-term effectiveness of a remedy.

Preference^fer TreatmenLas a. PrjnciJgdJjJemenI

By treating the contaminated ground water and the contaminated soils by incineration and solidifyinresiduals, the selected remedy addresses one of the principal threats posed by the site through the use 01treatment technologies. By utilizing treatment as a significant portion of the remedy, the statutory prefefor remedies that employ treatment as a principal element is satisfied.

January 16, 1992 s<c*llc Do Not Quote or Cite68

i. I" "•". I i|i i![ amii I IIH IHI I lill H 1 1 1 1 II IIHIJ 1 1 1 IW-.W

Highlight 34: Three Examples of Documentation of Significant Changes

Example One: No Significant J^banaes

The Proposed Plan for the ETO site was released for public comment m August 1991. The ProposedPlan identified Alternative S4, excavation, incineration, solidification, and capping, as the preferredalternative for soil and sediment remediation. EPA reviewed all written and verbal comments submittedduring the public comment period. Upon review of these comments, it was determined that no significantchanges to the remedy, as originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.

Example Two: Significant Change Requiring Only Documentation in the ROD

The Proposed Plan was released for public comment in August 1991. It identified Alternative G2,pump and treat through carbon adsorption with discharge to a POTW, as the preferred alternative forground-water remediation. Alternative G3 involved discharge to the XYZ River. During the publiccomment period, new information indicated that health and environmental levels could be met by the carbonadsorption treatment. In addition, it was discovered that the POTW in Nameless docs not have the capacityto handle the additional wastewatcrs from the EIO site. Therefore, EPA and the State decided to selectdischarge to the XYZ River rather than discharge to the POTW.

Example Threejjjgnificant Change Requiring a^New Public Comment Period

A Proposed Plan for the. EIO site was released for public comment in August 1991. The Plan identi-fied Alternative-S4,~cxcavation, incineration, soiidification, and capping, as the preferred alternative for soiland sediment remediation. During the public comment period, the results of remedial activities at anothersite with contamination problems similar to those at the EIO site indicated that an alternative treatment tech-nology, in-situ vitrification, could be used successfully on contaminant(s) of concern similar to those at theEIO site. Further analysis of the vitrification alternative indicated that fewer short-term risks would beassociated with it than with the incineration alternative. The information supporting this determination isavailable in the administrative record.

As a result of this new information, EPA decided to select in-situ vitrification as the new preferredalternative for cleaning up the HO site. The Tennessee Pollution Control Board concurred with thisdecision. In compliance with statutory requirements for ensuring the public has the opportunity to commenton major remedy selection decisions, a new Proposed Plan was prepared presenting in-situ vitrification as thepreferred alternative. The second Plan was made available to the public in October 1991. No significantcomments were received during the second public comment period, and no significant changes have beenmade to the selected remedy.


To serve these purposes, the ResponsivenessSummary should be a concise and completesummary of significant comments received fromthe public, including PRPs, during the publiccomment period required by CERCLA section117. The summary should be accompanied bythe lead agency*s responses to these comments.Responses should be clear, accurate, andcarefully written by the OSC or RPM, and/or byany other persons, as necessary, to ensure thebest response.

When general policy matters are discussed inthe Responsiveness Summary, it is recommendedthat they be brought to management's attentionbefore the release of the ROD. If the leadagency determines that a point-by-point responseto a set of comments is warranted, a separatecomment/response document should be prepared.In this situation, a summary of these commentswith the lead agency's response should beincluded in the Responsiveness Summary aswell.

Guidance^bn preparing ResponsivenessSummaries is available in Community Relationsin Superfwd: A Handbook (OSWER Directive9230.0-3B. June 1988). This Handbook detailsthe process of preparing the Summary andincludes a sample Responsiveness Summary.

<>.S SUBMITTING R^ORDDECISIONTO EPAHEWQUA1

^>It is important that all signed RODs

to Headquarters as soon as possible afare signed. Signed RODs are abstractedROD Annual Report and the RODs D.A completely assembled, clear, legiblethe ROD with a signed signature pagecomputer diskette containing the ROD shforwarded by die RPM or other desindividual to:

ROD ClearinghouseHazardous Site Control

Division (OS-220W)U.S. EPA401 M Street. S.W.Washington, D.C. 20460

This process may be more efficientindividual coordinates this effort in me Roffice (e.g., the administrativecoordinator). Appendix E describes the iof submitting RODs and other ddocuments to Headquarters.

1. Section 121(a) of CERCLA, as amended, provides that remedial actions should be carried out in accorwith section 121 "and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan."

2. A symbolic ranking method without an accompanying narrative, such as a "+" for the "best" altematra "-" for the lower-ranking alternative, is discouraged. Although this system could be used in a table, thesymbols should not substitute for the narrative comparison.

3. Other available information that docs not constitute an ARAR (e.g., advisories, criteria, and guidance)be considered in the analysis if it helps to ensure protectiveness or is otherwise appropriate for use in a sralternative, llcse TBCs should be included in the description if the lead and support agencies agree thatinclusion is appropriate.

4. CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual (OSWER Directive 9234.1-01, August 1988).

5. Key TBCs (i.e., those fundamental to the selected remedy) should be justified in the ROD. If the valicTBCs is challenged, the justification for use of the TBC should also be provided in the ResponsivenessSummary (see Section 6.4).


HNB -MI iuiiir MHiSiiifliiigili aff.ttitui liiti litil iiil 1 ii iii Ifflti

7.0 THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE RECORD OF DECISION

This chapter describes the roles and respon-sibilities of the lead and support agencies indeveloping the ROD. Procedures to facilitatetimely preparation, review, and final approval ofthe ROD are presented in this chapter, as well asdispute resolution procedures and the role ofother Federal agencies in cleanup activities atFederal facilities.

7.1 OVERVIEW

As with the Proposed Plan, the lead agencyhas the responsibility for preparing the ROD andcoordinating with the support agency(ies) andother lead agency program offices to attainconcurrence on the selected remedy. Typically,the lead agency that prepares the RI/FS Reportand the Proposed Plan will prepare the ROD,although mis may .vary from site to site. Inmany cases, EPA is the lead agency andprepares the-ROD; -however,, .the State canprepare the "ROD either when the State isdesignated me lead agency in the SMOA, CA,or SSC or when there is a state-lead enforcementaction at NPL sites. Federal agencies shouldprepare RODs for Federal facilities under theirjurisdiction, consistent with the terms of theirIAGs.

Although the roles of EPA, the State, andother Federal agencies may vary from site tosite, EPA retains the final authority for selectingall response actions pursuant to CERCLAsections 104, 106, 120. and 122.

7.1.1 State Preparation of the ROD

The State should recommend a remedy forEPA concurrence and adoption for cases inwhich EPA and the State designate that state asthe lead agency in the SMOA. Through theannual planning process, EPA and the Stateshould designate those sites for which the Stateshould prepare the ROD for EPA concurrenceand adoption.

As indicated in the NCP, EPA intends toimplement selectively the process, of statepreparation of RODs, giving the State the leadwhen both of the following conditions are met:

• The circumstances at a particular sitewarrant less EPA and more stateinvolvement

• TTie State has demonstrated its ability toconduct remedial actions in an effective andresponsible manner.

When the State is the lead agency for developingthe RI/FS at a Fund-financed site, if agreed toby EPA, the State should prepare the ProposedPlan, publish the notice of availability, preparethe Responsiveness Summary, and develop theROD. When the State has the responsibility forpreparing me ROD, the State should recommenda remedy to EPA. EPA and the State then signthe ROD. In cases such as this, EPA retainsfinal authority over remedy selection althoughthe State prepared the ROD.

7.1.2 Remedy Selection for State-LeadEnforcement Actions

Not every remedial activity taken at NPLsites is conducted under the authority ofCERCLA sections 104, 106 or 122. The Statemay take action at an NPL site under its ownremedial authority. This kind of action iscommonly referred to as a state-leadenforcement action.

The degree of EPA involvement in theremedy selection process at these sites isdiscretionary and should be established betweenEPA and the State in a SMOA, CA, or SSC.EPA may choose to concur or nonconcur with aremedy selected for such a site only when theSMOA. CA, or SSC specified such a role forEPA. Further guidance on state-leadenforcement actions is available in the InterimFinal Guidance on Funding CERCLA State


Enforcement Actions at NPL Sites (OSWERDirective 9831.6A-6D, April 7, 1988).

7.1.3 Roles and Responsibilities of OtherFederal Agencies

Executive Order 12580 delegates theauthority for carrying out the requirements ofCERCLA sections 117(a) and (c) to Federalagencies with Federal facilities under theirjurisdiction. A Federal agency, therefore, canissue the Proposed Plan. The agreement amongthe Federal agency, EPA, and, in many cases,the State should establish the responsibilities ofeach party for preparation of the ROD.

For sites under its jurisdiction, a Federalagency has the lead responsibility for preparingthe draft ROD in accordance with Chapter 6and, when appropriate. Chapter 9 of thisguidance, and for carrying out the lead agencyresponsibilities specified in this chapter. TheFederal agency should prepare the draft ROD,taking into consideration new information andcomments, received during the public commentperiod, and should submit the draft ROD toEPA (and, where designated in the IAG, theState) for EPA's written approval. TheRegional or Assistant Administrator's signatureconstitutes final EPA "adoption" of the ROD.

The Federal agency should publish a noticeof availability pursuant to CERCLA section117(d) and make the ROD available to thepublic before beginning the response action. Ina limited number of cases, the Federal agency,EPA, or the State involved in a remedial actionwill not be able to reach agreement on theremedial approach for a site. If the parties areunable to reach agreement on the draft RODeven after a dispute resolution process has beenfollowed, EPA should select me remedial action.

7.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OFLEAD AGENCY AND SUPPORTAGENCY

The responsibilities outlined below for thelead and support agency apply to EPA, the

State, or another Federal agenc^excel;specifically noted. -*

•7.2.1 Lead Agency ^3

As shown in Highlight 35, tagency's responsibilities in thedevelopment process include the follow

• Preparing the draft ROD.

• Briefing lead agency upper managethe ROD.

• Submitting the draft ROD to ottagency program offices for their rev-to the support agency to obfcagency's formal concurrenceselected remedy.

• Reviewing and addressing theagency's comments and modifyselected remedy, as appropriate.

• Revising the draft ROD for signatu

• Briefing the Regional Administrateif necessary for a consultaticappropriate Headquarters managerAssistant Administrator of OSWER'as the designated personnel in theagency.

• Submitting the ROD to the FAdministrator or the AsAdministrator of OSWER, ifnecesssignature. (If a State or a Federal a^the lead agency, that lead agency a:should sign the ROD.)

• Publishing the newspaper notice amiavailability of me ROD and makROD available to the public.

7.2.2 Support Agency

The support agency's responsibilitieROD development process include:


jjffinnnTmHmm'iniiBaiSaBaULmiJimiiJ 5SWS

Highlight 35: Lead Agency Responsibility in ROD Development Process

Prepare Draft ROD

Brief Lead AgencyManagement on ROD

[ jg.fc^^Ki . SJi- ^^^^^^g^gJgJ^^^^ g

SubmitROD toProgramOffices

ty^^fi^^v:

Submit |ROD to 1|Support |Agency |

ReceiveConcurrencefrom Support

Agency

ReviseROD for

Signature

Bnef following:• Regional Administrator/Assistant Administrator

- Support Agency

Obtain AppropriateSignatures

Publish Notice andMake ROD Available

to the Public

Highlight 36: Sample Newspaper Notificationof Availability of the Record of Decision

1>00

_£"S_

THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC^ANNOUNCES THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ?

0RECORD OF DECISION FOR THEEIO INDUSTRIAL SUPERFUND SITE

IN NAMELESS, TENNESSEE

On March 31, 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed the Record of Dcci(ROD) that formally selects the cleanup plan for the soil contamination at the EIO Industrial site. The 1outlines EPA's decision for selecting the cleanup remedy for the site. The Tennessee Pollution ControlBoard concurs with the findings in the ROD.

EPA has decided to excavate contaminated soils and sediments, treat the organic compounds byincineration, solidify the remaining wastes, and dispose of the treated soils on site. EPA will also pumpcontaminated ground water, treat it by carbon adsorption, and discharge it to a publicly owned treatmentworks.

The Administrative Record for the site, which includes the ROD and all documents that formed thebasis for EPA's selection of use cleanup remedy, is available for public review at the locations listed bcl

Nameless Public Library125 Elm StreetNameless, TN 00000(101) 999-1099Hours: Monday through Saturday

9 a.m. to 9 p.m.

U.S. EPA Docket Room. Region 4Federal Building, 10th FloorAtlanta, GA 11111(555) 555-5555Hours: Monday through Friday

8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Questions about EPA's decision or other activities at the EIO Industrial Supcrfimd site should bedirected to:

Joshua DoeCommunity Relations Coordinator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency200 Peachtree StreetAtlanta, GA 11111

(555) 555-4640Toll-free: 1 (800) 333-3333

between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays


8.0 POST-RECORD OF DECISION CHANGES

8.1 EVALUATING POST-RECORD OFDECISION INFORMATION

After a ROD is signed, new informationmay be received or generated during the RD/RAthat could affect how the Agency believes theremedy selected in the ROD should beimplemented. Where information is submittedby a PRP, the public, or the support agencyafter a ROD is signed, the lead agency shouldconsider this information when all of thefollowing criteria are met (NCP section300.825(c)):

• Comments contain significant information

• Information is not contained elsewhere inthe Administrative Record File

• Information could not have been submittedduring the.public-comment period

• Information substantially supports the needto alter the response action significantly.

The lead agency also may evaluate whethera change to the remedy is warranted on itsinitiative, even where the requirements of NCPsection 300.825(c) are not met.

8.2 TYPES OF POST-RECORD OFDESICION CHANGES

The lead agency's categorization of achange, which ultimately will affect thedocumentation procedure required, is a site-specific determination and should consider thefollowing factors:

• Whether or not the change significantlyalters the scope of the remedy (e.g., thephysical area of the response, remediationgoals, type and volume of wastes)

• Whether or not the change would alter theperformance (e.g., treatment levels to be

attained) and thus raise concerns about theprotectiveness or long-term effectiveness ofthe remedy that could not have beenanticipated based on information in theROD

• Whether or not the changes in costs are ofsuch a nature that they could not have beenanticipated, based on the estimates in theROD and the recognized uncertaintiesassociated with the hazardous wasteengineering process selected.

Based on this evaluation, and depending on theextent or scope of modification beingconsidered, the lead agency must determine thatthe post-ROD change fits into one of thefollowing categories:

• Non-significant or minor

• Significant

• Fundamental.

Nonsignificant changes are minor changesthat usually arise during design and construction.when modifications are made to the functionalspecifications of the remedy to optimizeperformance and minimize cost. Such changesmay affect the type or cost of materials,equipment, facilities, services, and supplies usedto implement the remedy. A significant changeto a remedy is generally an incremental changeto a component of a remedy that does notfundamentally alter the overall remedialapproach. A fundamental change is a changemat requires me reconsideration of the hazardouswaste management approach selected in theROD. That is, the scope, performance, or costof the proposed change does not reflect that ofthe selected remedy.

Highlight 37 provides examples of post-ROD changes. (See also NCP preamble. 55 PR8772.) Each type of post-ROD change is


Highlight 37: Post-Record of Decision Changes S°

Minor Changes <-"^5

• Remedial design testing shows that the volume of soil requiring treatment is 75,000 cubic yfd^rather than60,000 estimated io the ROD, but the cost of the remedy will only increase by 5 percent.

• During remedial design, it is discovered that it is not feasible to construct the on-site landfill (which is partselected remedy) in the location specified in the ROD. However, another location at me site is suitable forlandfill, and this location is chosen.

SignificJmt Changes

• Residuals from a treatment operation were not expected to be hazardous and it was planned to dispose of thsite in a Subtitle D unit. However, testing after treatment determines that me residuals are hazardous wasteoff-site disposal at a Subtitle C facility is required.

• The lead agency determines that me attainment of a newly proeoulgased requirement is necessary, based on ;scientific evidence, because the existing ARAR is no longer protective. Although (his new requirement willa basic feature of me remedy (i.e., tuning or cost), it will sot fundamentally alter the remedy specified in tt-ROD (i.e., change me selected technology).

• Samplmg during the remedial design phase indicates the need to increase me volume of waste material to beremoved and incinerated by 50 percent in order to meet remediaoon goals, thereby increasing the cost of AtBctioa. This increase in me scope of the action represents a significant change.

• The lead agency decides to use carbon adsorption instead of air stripping to conduct ground-water treatment.HoweveriAe basic pump and treat remedy remains unaltered and the cieacup level specified in the ROD wi.met .by Sue new technology; therefore, the change is significant, but not fundamental.

• The lead agency determines that it is not feasible to construct an on-site landfill in accordance with me reoaeselected in the ROD. The treated wastes must be sent to an off-site landfill. Although the overall nuuiagemapproach will remain the same, me costs and implementation time will increase significantly.

Fundamental Changes

• The in-situ soil washing remedy selected in me ROD proves to be mfeasible to implement after testing durin;remedial design. A decision is made to excavate and thermally treat the waste instead.

• The remedy selected in the ROD calls for off-site landfill disposal, but this option proves too costly becauseshortage of capacity. The lead agency decides to dispose of the waste in a newly constructed on-sitc landfill,

• Remedial design testing deterosmes mat me selected remedy usissg mfural attenuaefoo of ground water will nc-protective. The lead agency decides to implement a pump and treat remedy instead.

• At the five-year review for the site, tests indicate that the remedy is not protective. A ccw remedy must beselected that will meet protectiveness requirements, resulting in major new costs for the site.

NOTE: The examples presented here do not represent strict thresholds for changes in cost, volume, and/or

January 16, 1992 * * * Do Not Quote or Cite78

associated with a different documentationprocedure, as discussed below.

8.3 DOCUMENTING POST-RECORD OFDECISION CHANGES

The type of documentation required for apost-ROD change depends on the nature of thechange. Changes that significantly orfundamentally affect the remedy selected in theROD will require more explanation and/oropportunity for public comment than those thatdo not. As discussed below, significant changesrequire an Explanation of Significant Differences(ESD), and fundamental changes require a RODamendment.

83.1 Documenting Non-Significant Post-Record of Decision Changes

If non-significant or minor changes aremade, they should -be recorded in the post-decision document file. If the lead agencychooses, non-significant changes can bedocumented-for me public in an optionalRemedial Design Fact Sheet.

83.2 Documenting Significant Post-Recordof Decision Changes: the Explanationof Significant Differences (ESD)

When documenting significant changesmade to a remedy, the lead agency must complywith the procedures specified in NCP section300.435(c)(2)(i). An ESD should be prepared toprovide the public with an explanation of thenature of the changes made to the remedy, tosummarize the information that led to makingthat change, and to affirm that the revisedremedy complies with the statutory requirementsofCERCLA section 121. Generally, a new ninecriteria analysis is not required; however, theESD should include a statement that the RODmeets ARARs identified at the tune the originalROD was signed (NCP sec t ion300.430(f»(l)(ii)(B)(l) and (2)).

It also would be appropriate to prepare anESD document when the lead agency decides to

exercise a contingency remedy that was notsufficiently described in me ROD (see Chapter Q9 of this guidance). 0

0While the ESD is being prepared and made ^

available to the public, the lead agency may ^proceed with the pre-design. design,construction, or operation activities associatedwith the remedy. The remedy can continue tobe implemented in this case because the ESDrepresents only a notice of change, and theAgency is not reconsidering the overall remedy.The lead agency should consult with the supportagency, as appropriate, before issuing an ESD(see NCP section 300.435(c)(2)). Although notspecifically required by CERCLA section 121(f).it is also recommended for the lead agency toprovide the support agency the opportunity tocomment and to summarize the support agency'scomments in the ESD. The agency also shouldpublish a notice of availability and a briefdescription of the ESD in a local newspaper ofgeneral circulation (as required by CERCLASection U7(c)), and make the ESD available tothe public by placing it m the administrativerecord file and information repository. A formalpublic comment period is not required whenissuing an ESD. In some cases, an additionalpublic comment period or public meeting maybe held voluntarily on a planned ESD (see NCPsection 300.825(b)). This may be useful wheremere is considerable public or PRP interest inthe matter. The Office of Emergency andRemedial Response (OERR) recommends issuingthe ESD m a fact sheet format as outlined inHighlight 38. The appropriate RegionalManager may sign an ESD.

8.3.3 Documenting Fundamental Post-Record of Decision Changes: the RODAmendment

When fundamental changes are made tothe remedy selected in a ROD, the lead agencyshould conduct the public participation anddocumentation procedures specified in NCPsection 300.435(c)(2)(ii). As a matter of policy,this would include issuing a proposed plan thathighlights the proposed changes. The format


Highlight 38: Sample Format for BSD

Introductioa: Begin wiA an introduction to the site and • statemeat of purpose for the ESD, mclu8%:0

• Site name and location w"^• Identification of lead and support agencies C^• Citation of CERCLA section 117(c) and NCP section 300.435(c)(2Xi) ^5• Summary of the circumstances that gave rise to the need for aa ESD •C. >• Statement that tfae ESD will become part of the Administrative Record File (NCP 300.825(a)(2))• Address of location where Ac File is available and hours of availability of the File.

Summary of Site History, ContamiiBation Problems, and Seteeted Remedy; Summarize the following aspc"site or operable unit:

• The cona-mmarion problems and cite history, including the date on which the ROD was signed• The selected remedy, as originally described in the ROD.

Descriptxm of the Stgnificaat Differences and the Bass for those Differences: Summarize (he significant csto the remedy and fhe basis for making those changes, including:

• Information mat gave rise to significant differencea from the selected remedy as it was originally specified, wcould include the following: (1) the results of treatsfoiiity studies; or 0) other mfoncatioa developed or prosduring the remedial design process mat supports the change. Reference any information in the AdmmistradvRecord File that supports the need for the change.

• Description of the significant differences between the remedy as presented in the ROD and the action now prAs appropriate, this description should summarize the differences in scope, performance, or cost between theoriginal and modified remedies, as necessary. For example:

OriginalRemedy h^xfified Remedy

Excavation, and incineration of 7,500 Excavation and mcmeration of 11,500cubic yards of contaminated soil. cubic yards of contamiamted soil.

Air stripping and ground-water Carbon adsorption for ground-waterrestoradoa. restoration.

Support Agency Comments: Include a summary of support agency commente on the ESD.

Animation of the Statutory Detenamations: Affirm that me modified remedy contmues to satisfy the requirtof CERCLA section 121 by including a statement such as the following:

''Considering me new information that has been developed and the changes mat have bcca made to the selectedremedy, the [lead and support agencies] believe that die remedy remains protective of human health and theenvironment, complies with federal and state requirements that were identified ((1) m the ROD/(2) in Shis BSD]applicable or relevant acd appropriate to mis remedial action (at the time [(1) the criguud ROD/(2> this BSD] wesigned), and is cost-effective. la addition, die revised remedy utilizes perawient solutions sad alternative treatmresource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this she."

Public Participation Actmties: Document compliance with me appropriate public partictpsaon requirements:

• That notice has been issued that the contests of the Administrative Record File are available for public reviewcomment

• The date of planned public information meetings, if applicable. (EPA is not required to hold public meetingsESDs but may choose to do so if warranted by public interest.)


should follow that of proposed plans (seeChapter 2). In general, the introductory sectionsof the ROD do not need to be readdressed in theROD amendment.

The focus of the amendment should be asfollows:

• Documenting the rationale for the amendment

• Evaluating the remedy originally selected andthe new proposed remedy using the nineevaluation criteria

• Providing assurances that the proposedremedy satisfies the statutory requirements.

The format for a ROD amendment is presentedin Highlight 39.

If the ROD to be amended addresses theentire response action for the site or a series ofoperable units (e.g., soil, surface water, andground watery only that portion of the remedybeing changed (e.g., ground water) requires anamendment. Under SARA section 121, for theportion of the ROD being amended, a new ninecriteria analysis, including a new ARARsanalysis, will be necessary. Portions of theanalysis in the original ROD can be cross-referenced, where appropriate. Therefore, theamount of information included in a RODamendment is a function of the type of changemade to the remedy and the rationale for thatchange. RD/RA activities being conducted onother portions of the site or operable units notproposed for changes may continue during theamendment process.

When fundamental changes are proposed tothe ROD, the lead agency should conduct thepublic participation and documentationprocedures conducted for the original ROD(e.g.. Proposed Plan, public comment period,Responsiveness Summary). The final decisionto amend is not made until after consideration ofpublic comment, as in the original ROD. (SeeNCP section 300.435(c)(2)(h)(A)-(H).) When afundamental change is proposed as a result of

Highlight 39: Sample Format for RODAmendment

Introduction

Site name and locationIdentify lead and support agenciesCite CERCLA section 117 and NCP300.435(c)(2)(u)Date of ROD signatureSummarize circumstances (hat led to meneed for a ROD amendmentState that ROD amendment will becomepart of the Administrative Record File(NCP section 300.825(a)(2))Provide address where File is available forpublic review and hours of availability.

Reasons for Issuing the ROD Amendment

• Identify remedy selected in ROD

• Summarize rationale for changing remedyselected in the ROD.

Description of the New AStcr-natives

• Describe me original selected remedy andthe new proposed remedies in the samemanner requested in a standard ROD,highlighting the following:

• Treatment components

• Containment or storage components

• Ground-water components

• General components

• Major ARARs.

Evaluation of Alternatives

• Profile the original selected remedy andthe new proposed remedies against &enine criteria.

Statutory Determinations

• Provide a statement that the modifiedremedy satisfies CERCLA section 121.

January 16, 1992 w Do Not Quote or Cite81

negotiations with a PRP, the Proposed Plan forthe ROD amendment should be released forpublic comment before the consent decree. (Ifa change is made after a consent decree has beenentered, involvement of the court may berequired. Site managers should check with theirRegional Counsel on how this may beaccomplished.) ROD amendments must besigned by the Regional Administrator.


9.0 DOCUMENTING NO ACTION, INTERIM ACTION ANDCONTINGENCY REMEDY DECISIONS

NO ACTION

This chapter discusses the essentialcomponents of RODs that are prepared todocument three specific types of remedial actiondecisions: (1) no action; (2) interim actions;and (3) contingency remedies. In preparing oneof these three types of RODs, RPMs shouldmodify the format of the "standard ROD" forfinal response actions (see Highlight 14 inChapter 6) as indicated in this chapter. In theexamples provided here, for each type of ROD,sections of the standard ROD that should beeliminated have been crossed out, and sectionsthat should be modified according to thedirections provided appear in bold. Sections ofthe ROD that are not crossed out or do notappear in bold should be prepared as in astandard ROD. „. _-...

9.1 DOCUMENTINGDECISIONS

EPA may determine that no action (i.e., notreatment, engineering controls, or institutionalcontrols) is warranted under any of the followinggeneral sets of circumstances:

• When the site or a specific problem or areaof the site (i.e., an operable unit) poses nocurrent or potential threat to human healthor the environment

• When CERCLA does not provide theauthority to take remedial action

• When a previous response eliminated theneed for further remedial response.

Examples of potential situations where noaction decisions may be appropriate are providedin Highlight 40. Remedial alternatives thatinclude solely institutional controls are notconsidered "no action." An alternative mayinclude only monitoring and still be considered"no action." The remainder of this section

^0-9irWs

0-^.0

outlines ROD formats to use for situations underwhich a no action ROD may be warranted.

Highlight 40: Situations Where NoAction Decisions May Be

Appropriate

Where the baseline risk assess-ment concluded that conditions atthe site pose no unacceptable risksto human health and theenvironment.

Where a release involved onlypetroleum product that is exemptfrom remedial action underCERCLA section 101.

Where a previous removal actioneliminated existing and potentialrisks to human health and theenvironment so that no furtheraction is necessary.

9.1.1 No Action Situation ffl: Action NotNecessary for Protection

1. Declaration

• Site Name and Location

• Statement of Basis and Purpose

•——Asaosomcnt of the Site

• Description of the Selected Remedy: Thelead agency should state that no action isnecessary for the site or operable unit,although it may authorize monitoring toverify that no unacceptable exposures to


potential hazards posed by conditions at thesite or operable unit occur in the future.

•——Statutory Dotormisfitteaa

• Declaration Statement: None of thesection 121 statutory determinations arenecessary in this section. Instead, the leadagency should state briefly that no remedialaction is necessary to ensure protection ofhuman health and the environment.

• Signature and Support Agency Acceptanceof the Remedy

2. Decision Summary

• Site Name, Location, and Description

• Site History and Enforcement Activities

• Highlights of Community Participation

• Scope and Role of Operable Unit orResponse" Action'

• Site Characteristics

• Summary of Site Risks: The informationin this section provides the primary basisfor the no action decision. The discussionshould support the determination that noremedial action is necessary to ensureprotection of human health and theenvironment. The lead agency shouldexplain the basis for its conclusion thatunacceptable exposures to hazardoussubstances will not occur. (In most cases,this will be based on the baseline riskassessment conducted during the RI.) Inlimited cases where alternatives weredeveloped in the FS, the lead agency shouldreference the RI/FS Report.

•——Poacription of Alt^'nativea

•——Summary of Comparative Anfllyaia ofAltcnmtivoa

•——Selected Remedy1^

• Explanation of SignificaffRC'hange^yah

03. Responsiveness Summary^

' •m?

9.1.2 No Action Situation jy2: No CAuthority to Take Action

1. Declaration



•——Agaoaament-oftho Site

• Description of the Selected Remelead agency should state that nonecessary for the site or operatalthough it may authorize monitverify that no unacceptable expopotential hazards posed by conditiosite or operable unit occur in the f

•——Statutory Dctormmationa

• Declaration Statement: No secistatutory determinations are nece;this section. This section shouldthat EPA does not have .authoritCERCLA sections 104 or 106 tothe problem(s) posed by the site or (unit. If the problem has been ret-other authorities, this should be ex-

• Signature and Support Agency Aceof the Remedy

2. Decision Summary

• Site Name, Location, and Descript

• Site History and Enforcement Actr

• Highlights of Community Participa


• Scope and Role of Operable Unit orResponse Action


• Summary of Site Risks

•——Doflcription of Altomativca

Summary—of Comparative Analysis ofAltomativca

•——Selected Remedy

• Statutory Authority Finding: Theconcluding statement of the absence ofCERCLA authority to address the problemshould be the same as in the Declaration.

• Explanation of Significant Changes

3, Responsiveness -Summary.

9.1.3 No Action Situation 0: No Further.Action Necessary

1. Declaration



•——Aaacoamont of the Site

• Description of the Selected Remedy: Thelead agency should state that no action isnecessary for the site or operable unit,although it may authorize monitoring toverify that no unacceptable exposures torisks posed by conditions at the site oroperable unit occur in the future.

•——Statutory Detorminationfl

• Declaration Statement: This Declarationshould state that it has been determined thatno further remedial action is necessary atthe site or operable unit. The Declarationshould explain that a previous response(s)

at the site or operable unit eliminated theneed to conduct additional remedial action.This section also should note whether afive-year review is required. Sectionl21(c) of CERCLA requires a five-yearreview of any earlier post-SARA remedymat eliminated me need to take furtheraction (i.e., using engineering and/orinstitutional controls to preventunacceptable exposures), yet resulted inhazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants remaining at the site. As amatter of policy, EPA should generallyperform a five-year review for pre-SARAremedies and removal actions that result inhazardous substances remaining on site, andany remedial action that requires five ormore years to attain the cleanup levelsspecified in the ROD.

• Signature and Support Agency Acceptanceof me Remedy

2. Decision Summary






• Summary of Site Risks: The informationin this section provides the primary basisfor the no action decision. The discussionshould support the determination that nofurther remedial action is necessary toensure protection of human health and theenvironment. The lead agency shouldexplain the basis for its conclusion thatunacceptable exposures to hazardoussubstances will not occur. (In most cases,this will be based on the baseline riskassessment conducted during the RI.) Anyprevious responses that were conducted at


the site or operable unit that served toeliminate the need for additional remedialaction should be summarized in thisdiscussion. In limited cases wherealternatives were developed in the FS, thelead agency should reference the RI/FSReport.

Description of Alternatives

Summary of Compnrattvo Analysis—ofAlternatives

Soloctod Romody

A——Statutory Betormigasis^a


3. Responsiveness Summary.

9.2 DOCUMENTING INTERIM ACTIONDECISIONS

During scoping, or at other points m theRI/FS, the lead agency may determine that aninterim remedial action is appropriate.1 Aninterim action is limited in scope and onlyaddresses areas/media that will be followed by afinal operable unit ROD. Reasons for taking aninterim action could include the need to:

• Take quick action to protect human healthand the environment from an imminentthreat in the short term, while a finalremedial solution is being developed; or

• Institute temporary measures to stabilizethe site or operable unit and/or preventfurther migration or degradation.

Interim actions either are implemented forseparate operable units or may be a componentof a final ROD. In either case, an interimaction must be followed by a final ROD. whichshould: (1) provide long-term protection ofhuman health and the environment; (2) fullyaddress the principal threats posed by the site or

operable unit; and (3) address^ the spreference for treatment th^s? redmtoxicity, mobility, or volume of^astes.

0The basic format presenteiPm this'c- swill be the same for all utterim

However, the detailed information thatprovided within each section of the RCvary, depending on whether the action acground water or a contaminant source.

9.2.1 Interim Actions versus Eariv A

Interim remedial actions shouldconfused with "early remedial actions."in this case is simply a description of waction is taken. Thus, an early actionthat is taken before the risk assessmentsite or operable unit has been completed,actions may be either interim or finmanagers may take an early action whenmust be mitigated immediately, even b"formal" RI or "formal" FS can be prExamples of early interim and early finalfollow.

When an interim action is taken emitigate immediate threats, no formalReport will be available yet. A.preparation of an RI/FS Report is not nfor an interim action, there mi:documentation that supports the rationaleaction, to fulfill the NCP's administrativerequirements. A summation of sitcollected during field investigations shesufficient to document a problem m rresponse. In addition, a short anal:remedial alternatives considered, those Kand the basis for the evaluation (as is dofocused FS) should be summarized to ;the selected action. Highlight 41 pexamples of interim actions and early aci

9.2.2 Interim Action Record of DFormat2

The Interim Action ROD should be tto the limited scope and purpose of theaction.


Highlight 41: Examples of PossibleInterim and Early Actions

Interim Actions

• Installing extraction wells to pump A ground-water aquifer to rcatrict migration of acontaminant plume with the mtealioa of laterinstalling additional wells (or taking otheraction) to address the contamination in afinal acdon.

• Providing a temporary alternate source ofdrinking water with the intectioo of later, ina subsequent action, remediating the sourceof contamination and/or me aquifer.

• Constructing a temporary cap to control orreduce exposures until subsequent action istaken.

• Relocating contaminated material from onearea of a site (e.g., resideclial yards) toanother area of the site for temporarystorage until a decision on how best tomanage site wastes is made.

Early Actions

• Earfvinterim action. Any of the interimactions discussed above, if taken before thecompletion of the risk assessment for theOU, would constitute an eariy action.

If only drums are removed from an areawith drum and soil contamination, the actioncould be viewed as an interim action becausethe area would undergo farmer study todetermine the extent of the soilcontamination. However, if drums areremoved from an area where no residualcontamination remains, me action would bean eariy final action.

• Eariy final action. Before the formal RI/FSis completed, drums are removed from thesite along with surrounding contaminatedsoil that, without eariy attention, could resultin contamination of currently uncontammatedareas. {This action, although taken eariy, isfinal because the removed drums and soilwere taken off site for final disposal.]

The format for Interim Action RODs isoutlined below.

1. Declaration



• Assessment of the Site

• Description of Selected Remedy

• Statutory Determinations: Thedeclaration statement should read asfollows:

This interim action is protective of humanhealth and the environment in the shortterm and is intended to provide adequateprotection until a final ROD is signed;complies with (or waives) Federal and stateapplicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements for this limited-scope action,and is cost-effective. This action is interimand is not intended to utilize permanentsolutions and alternative treatment (orresource recovery) technologies to themaximum extent practicable for this[site/operable unit}. [Note: Wheretreatment is utilized, replace the previoussentence with the following.' "Although thisinterim action is not intended to addressjully the statutory mandate for permanenceand treatment to the maximum extentpracticable, this interim action does utilizetreatment and thus is in furtherance of thatstatutory mandate. 1 Because this actiondoes not constitute the final remedy for the[site/operable unit}, the statutory preferencefor remedies that employ treatment thatreduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as aprincipal element [Note: Include iftreatment is being used: 'althoughpartially addressed in this remedy'\ will beaddressed by the final response action.Subsequent actions are planned to addressfully the threats posed by the conditions atthis [site/operable unit}. Because this


remedy will result in hazardous substancesremaining on site above health-based levels,a review will be conducted to ensure thatthe remedy continues to provide adequateprotection of human health and theenvironment within five years aftercommencement of the remedial action.Because this is an interim action ROD,review of this site and of this remedy willbe ongoing as EPA continues to developfinal remedial alternatives for the[site/operable unit}.

Signature and Support Agency Acceptanceof the Remedy

Decision Summary

Site Name, Location, and Description

Site History and Enforcement Activities

Highlights'of Community Participation

Scope and Role of Operable Unit: Thissection provides the rationale for taking thelimited action. To the extent thatinformation is available, the section shoulddetail how the response action fits into theoverall site strategy. This section shouldstate that the interim action will beconsistent with any planned future actions,to the extent possible.

Site Characteristics: This section shouldfocus on the description of those site oroperable unit characteristics to be addressedby the interim remedy.

Summary of Site Risks: This sectionshould focus on risks addressed by theinterim action and should provide therationale for the limited scope of the action.The rationale can be supported by facts thatindicate that temporary action is necessaryto stabilize the site or portion of the site,prevent further environmental degradation,or achieve significant risk reduction quicklywhile a final remedial solution is being

developed. Qualitative risk infcmay be presented if ^auantitatiinformation is not yet ^jailable,often will be the case. TIse morefindings of the baselina^Msk assshould be included in th&^ubsequeaction ROD for the opera&e unitultimate cleanup objectives (i.e., actexposure levels) for the site or cunit.

Description of Alternatives: Thisshould describe the limited alternatiwere considered for the interim(generally three or fewer). Onl:requirements that are applicable or iand appropriate requirements (AR/the limited-scope interim action sh'incorporated into the descriptialternatives.

Summary of Comparative AnalAlternatives: The comparative cshould be presented in light of thescope of the action. Evaluation crifarelevant to the evaluation of interimneed not be addressed in detail. :their irrelevance to the decision shenoted briefly.

Selected Remedy

Statutory Determinations: The .action should protect human health ienvironment from the exposure paththreat it is addressing and thematerial being managed. The ^discussion should focus only onARARs specific to the interim actiorres iduals management dimplementation).3 The discussion"utilization of permanent solutiortreatment to the maximumpracticable" should indicate that the iaction is not designed or expectedfinal, but that the selected rrepresents the best balance of tra(among alternatives with respect to pecriteria, given the limited scope


APPENDIX A

DESCRIPTION OF A HYPOTHETICAL SITE(To be developed)

January 24, 1992 w Do Not Quote or Cite

The format for Contingency Remedy RODsis outlined below. 'r5?

0

CONTINGENCY

action. The discussion under thepreference for treatment section should notethat the preference will be addressed in thefinal decision document for the site or finaloperable unit.



93 DOCUMENTINGREMEDIES

The lead agency, in consultation with thesupport agency, may decide to incorporate acontingency remedy in the ROD. Use of acontingency ROD may be appropriate whenthere is significant uncertainty about the abilityof remedial options to achieve remediation levels(e.g., cleanup of an aquifer to non-zero MCLGsor MCLs).

For example, a contingency ROD may beappropriate -when the performance of aninnovative treatment technology (or ademonstrated technology being used on a wastefor which performance data are not available)appears to be the most promising option, butadditional testing will be needed during remedialdesign to verify the technology's performancecapabilities; in this case, a more "provenapproach" could be identified as a contingencyremedy. [Note: The use of contingencyremedies should be carefidty considered. Sitemanagers should perform the necessary steps oftreatability studies/field investigations to evaluatea technology's performance capabilities duringthe RI/FS. More detailed testing at theoperational-scale level may be performed duringdesign.]

Where applicable, the ROD should specifyunder what circumstances the contingencyremedy would be implemented, i.e., what arethe criteria (e.g., failure to achieve desiredperformance levels) that EPA will use to decideto implement the contingency option as opposedto the selected remedy.

1. Declaration



• Assessment of the Site

• Description of the Selected Remedy:Both the selected remedy and thecontingency remedy should be described inbullet form.

• Statutory Determinations: TheDeclaration should be modified to indicatethat both the selected remedy and thecontingency remedy will satisfy thestatutory requirements.

• Signature and Support Agency Acceptanceof the Remedy

2. Decision Summary






• Summary of Site Risks

• Description of Alternatives: This sectionshould identify any uncertainties about theuse of the technologies being considered,and the extent additional testing is needed.The selected remedy and the contingencyremedy must be fully described.

• Summary of Comparative Analysis: Theselected remedy and the contingency

0^0


remedy should be evaluated fidiy againstthe nine criteria; the uncertainties should benoted, as well as the expectations forperformance. Community (and supportagency) acceptance of an innovativetechnology should be discussed in light ofthe CERCLA provisions in section121(b)(2). which takes into account thedegree of support for the action by thecommunity.

• Selected Remedy: The selected andcontingency remedies should be identified.Additional testing/investigations to occur aspart of remedial design to farther evaluatethe selected remedy should be discussed.The criteria that will be used to decide toimplement the ccntiogeccy remedyshould be identified.

• Statutory Determinations: The statutorydetermination discussion should documentthat both rem&aies fulfill CERCLA section121 requirements.



1. A removal action also any be appropriate to address short-term risks at an NPL site. See mterJJOiGuid^Addressing Immediate 'Iteats at NPL Sites. OSWER Directive 9200.2-03, January 30, 1990.

2. In some cases, RODs will be prepared that include both interim actions and a final action; such RODsclearly specify which components of the action are interim and which are final. For any final action compthe ROD should include the information and documentation required for the "standard ROD." For example,a ROD includes a final source control measure and a temporary alternate water supply, Efac ROD must provdocumentation required in the "standard format" for the final source control acdon, as well as addressing,streamlined manner discussed above, the rationale and justification for the interim water supply action.example, it would be necessary to address the contaminated ground water m a final action ROD at a later

3. An interim remedy waiver may be appropriate where a requirement that is an ARAR cannot be met asthe interim remedy but will be attained (unless use of one of me other five waivers is justified) by the fi;remedy (CERCLA section 121(d)(4)(A) and NCP 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(C)(l)).


APPENDIX B

SAMPLE PROPOSED PLAN(To be developed)

January 24, 1992 *llc* Do Not Quote or Cite

APPENDIX C

WORKSHEETS FOR THE SUMMARY COMPARATIVEANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

January 17. 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Cite

APPENDIX C

WORKSHEETS FOR THE SUMMARY COMPARATIVEANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

• Worksheets for the Summary Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

• Summary of Evaluation Worksheet

This Appendix contains worksheets that couldbe used to assist in preparing the "Evaluation ofAlternatives" section of the Proposed Plan andthe "Comparative Analysis of Alternatives"section of the ROD. In preparing the ProposedPlan. the worksheets could be used to outlinehow all alternatives compare with the preferredalternative. In preparing the ROD, theworksheets can assist in identifying the mostsignificant advantages and disadvantages amongalternatives. This. will facilitate a logicalpresentation of the'comparative analysis, inwhich alternatives are discussed under eachindividual, criterion. The individual notes andsummary exhibit at the end of this Appendixmay also prove a useful tool for briefing theRegional Administrator or the State Director onthe findings in suppon of the Proposed Plan orthe ROD.

These worksheets are optional tools. If used,the worksheets should not be included in theAdministrative Record File.

Worksheets are included for each of the nineevaluation criteria:

Threshold criteria

• Overall protection of human health and theenvironment

• Compliance with ARARs

Balancing criteria

• Long-term effectiveness end permanence

• Reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volumethrough treatment

• Short-term effectiveness

• Implementability

• Cost

Modifying criteria

• State/support agency acceptance

• Community acceptance.

In general, each worksheet includes therelevant questions that should be addressed undereach criterion, space for listing each alternative,and additional space for notes.

The last exhibit in this Appendix presents aformat for summarizing the results of thecomparative analysis for the ROD.

January 17, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or CiteC-l

0ItWElf

WORKSHEETS FOR THE SUMMARY 0COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES • 5

THRESHOLD CRITERION: Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS:

• How would the remedy eliminate, reduce, or coacol risks posed through each pashwsy through ttessiengineering controls, or msdmdonal controls?

• Would there be any voaaeceptable xhort-fenn or crofts-media unpscy ssaocsassd with the remedy?

• For cwcinogcns, would exposure levels be brought wiAin the risk range?

ALTERNATIVE NOTES

PRovnADEQU

PROTEC(Y/N)

January 17, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or CiteC-2

2>C5

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ^

THRESHOLD CRITERION: Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (continued) °———————— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — . ^ _—————— -BT?

0PROVIDESADEQUATE

ALTERNATIVE NOTES PROTECTION?(Y/N)


000-t?"^0- 3-®THRESHOLD CRITERION: Compliance with ARARs

QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS:

• Would the altemaovc comply with cheimc«I-«pecific, location-specific, or Ktion-fpecific ARARc?

• If necettty. coukt a waiver be justified?

• Would ifee iliersurive compSy with other gmdaice, eriieri*. or •dvuories that lead •nd support •genehaw agreed •re "to be considered" for the action?

ATTAINSALTERNATIVE NOTES ARARs?

07N)

January 17. 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or CiteC-4

——————————————————————————— 03

THRESHOLD CMTEMON: Compliance with ARARs (continued) C5——————————————————————————————————————————————————— ^0

ALTERNATIVE NOTES ATTAINSARARs?

(Y/N)

0


PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION: Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

iad

"c-caj

0~ "0

Analysis Factor Specific Factor Considerations

Magnitude of residual risks

Adequacy and reliability of controls

What wcu'd be the ma^ade of (he reclamingrisks?What remaining sources of risk can be identified?How much would be d^s to treatment residuals,and bow maseh wc_ld be due io untreated residua!contanimatioa?Would a five-year review be required?

What is the likelihood that the technologies wouldmeet required process efficieascies or performancespecifications?What type and degree of long-term managementwould be required?What would be the requirements for Eong-tennmonitoring?What operation and maintenance (O&M) functionswould need to be performed?What difficulties and imcenaindcs may beassociated with long-term O&M?What is the potential need for replacement oftechnical components?What would be [be magnitude of the threats orrisks should the remedial action need replacement?What would be die degree of confidence thatcontrols can adequately handle pcKntial problems?What would be the unc-enaintiss associated withland disposal of residuals and untreated wastes?

ALTERNATIVE NOTES RELATIVE RANKING


PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION: Long-teim Effectiveness and Permanence (continued) TK!

ALTERNATIVE NOTES RELATIVE RANKING 0-^0


PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment


Analysis Factor Specific Factor ConsideraQtms

Trcaaneit process «id remedy • Would the tresiment process addres* the principal threau?• Would there be any special reqmremous for the treatment

process?

Amount tifhazardnwi ffitatfrifll • Wimt pfTtiwi ([""'?, vwh""*) of wiftsminsw^ material woulddestroyed cr treated be desooyed? '

• What portion (mass, vehicle) of CTaaamina^maMrialwodd beHeated?

Reduction m loxicliy. mobility, • To what extmt would the total mass of toxic ccnuunman^s) ofor volume potential concern or volume be zeduced?

• To what extent would the mobility of toxic cont«min.Bit(s) ofpotential concern be reduced?

• To what extent would the volume of toxic contaminants) ofpotentud oonceni be reduced?

Irreversibility of the tretiment • To what extent would the effects of treatment be irreversible?

Type rod qluuuity. of-treatment • What residuals would remain?residual • What would be their quantities and characteristics?

, ., . • What risks would treaiment residuals pose?

Statutory preference for treatment • Would principal threats be within the scope of the action?as a principal element • Would treatment be used to reduce inherent hazards posed by

principal threats at the site?


—————————————————————————————————————————————— c%«„-.-!

PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment ,

ALTERNATIVE NOTES RELATIVE RANKING ^—————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ^


PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION: Short-tenn Effectiveness

Analysis Factory Specific Factor Considerations

Protection of ccsmmmity duringremedixl actions

Protecaon of workers duringremedial actbns

Environmental impacts

Tune untiLrcmcdial-responseaction .objectives would beachieved

What tre the risks to the community that would need toaddressed?How would the risks to the commumEy be addresffmitigated?What risks would remain to the conunumty that couldreadily ccntroUed?

What ie the risks to the worken that would need to be•ddfCttcd?What risks would remain to the workers; that could not be Tcontrolled?How would the risks to the workers be addressed and miri

What environmental impacts are expected with the constrand implementation of the alternative?What are the •vtilabEe mitigation measures to be used VKis their reliability to minimize potential impacts?What would be the impacts that could not be avoided shoialternative be implemented?

How long until protection against the threxts being specLaddressed would be achieved?How long until any remaining site threats would be addreHow long until remedial response objectives would be <cfc



AO

PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION: Short-term Effectiveness (continued) "—————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ^


January 17, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or CiteC-ll

PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION: Implen

ALTERNATIVE

Analysis Factor

Tcchmcal Feasibility

Ability to construct and operate •technology •

Reliability of technology •

Ease of undertafeing •ddiiionai remedial •action, if necessary

•

Monitoring considerauons •

*

— - -

i—3[icntability - Technical Feasibility ^

0Specific Faclor Considerations

What difficulties may be associaEed wilii constmcdon?What uneettamtics would be related ED oonstrucaon?

What is the likelihood that technical problems would 1schedule delays?

What likely fuEure remedial •ctions would need to beandcipaied?How difficult would it be to unpEerasat the additional rcractions, if required?

Do migrtdon or exposure pathways exist that could imonitored adequately?What risks of exposure exist should monitoring be insiiffic:detect failure?

NOTES RELATIVE RANKING


PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION: Implementability - Availability of Service and Materials

Analysis Factor Specific Factor Considerations

Availability of Services aid Materials

Availability of treatment, storagecapacity, and disposal services

Are adequate treatment, storage capacity, and disposal servicesavailable?How much additional capacity would be oecessary?Would (be lack of capacity prevent unpleaneniarion?What additional provisions would be required la ensure theneeded additional capacity?

Availability of necessary equipmentand specialists

Availability of prospectivetechnologies

Are the necessary equipment and specialists available?What additional equipment and specialists would be required?Would the lack of equipment and specialists preventimplementation?What additional provisions would be required ID ensure theneeded equipment and specialists?

Are technologies under consideration generally available andsufficiently demonstrated for the specific application?Would technologies require further development before theycould be applied full-scale to the type of waste at the site?When should die technology be available for full-scale use?Would more than one vendor be available to provide acompetitive bid?



00

0PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION: Implementability - Administrative Feasibility - ?

Analvsis Factor Specific Factor Considerations

Administrative Feasibility

Coordination with ether curacies What steps would be required to coordinate wuh other •geneWhat steps would be required to set up tong-tenn or fucooFdouZion imong agenda?Could pennies fcr oflsite activities be obtained if required?



PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION: Cost

QUESTION TO ADDRESS:

• What xre the estimated capiul and O&M costs?



0

PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION: Cost (continued)

ALTERNATIVE NOTES RELATTVE ftAl\10NG


MODIFYING CRITERION: State/Support Agency Acceptance


• Does the State or Support Agency concur on the selected remedy?



(n——————————————————————————————————e$——

MODIFYING CRITERION: State/Support Agency Acceptance (continued) ^

^ALTERNATIVE NOTES RELATIVE RACKING

January 17, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or GteC-18

MODIFYING CRITERION: Community Acceptance


• Does die community accept the illenudve?



•

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————(sa————_ "wpli

MODIFYING CRITERION: Community Acceptance (continued) '—.0

ALTERNATIVE NOTES RELATIVE NKING


EXHIBIT C-2EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETED

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WORKSHEET


iillllllillilllllllllillillllllllllllllllllllllllllllbin lilmliiiiiiililiiliiliiiiii uiiilliliiiiiliili

EXHIBIT C-2EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETED W

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WORKSHEET G^

CRITERION: Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

Specific Fictor ConsiderarioBH

Magntflode of residual riliu

Arignjnagy «nd lelulKlHy of coouoli

Whxt would be the magniiade of the vmaw^v risks'!Whit reroiimcf foorces of mk cui be idmrified? How nmdi wedue so waazaeEt reoduaii, «od bow much would be due to nnntifoal coaSssasussootWould a Sxm-yvax renew be required?

Whtf M ifeg tiiteSfe^ ihai tecfa»te| wcoid inect leqngegl FeffideBKiC* or perfbmucice qwdficaace^?What type sod degree of koa-tenn maiSflgemeait woold be tcqmirWlut waaJd be the reqm^aafflia for loaf-tenn nscsosariEt?Wht opendaQ •ad iTMinneBigmef. (OAM) fifaoien wodd needpcnooocd?What difficiataet md apentJOifa-a may be uaodued woh IOB^O&M?What is the potential wsd for replacement of ledaiical compora-sWtut wooid be the mxgntede of the dueau or nskx ihoold the recJCtKM need icpiaeemcot?Whit would be the degree of axifideoce that coctroli can ideq'handle poiendil problcmi?Wbst would be the uncemmdei usodied with land ditpcaal of recxnd tirmeaecd wisiei?

ALTERNATIVE NOTES

1. Incineration of TCE-contaminated soil,Ground-Water Pumping and Treatment, In-situ Fixation of Lead-contaminated soil, andInstallation of a Cap

2. In-situ Soil Vapor Extraction of TCE-conraminated soil, In-situ Fixation of Lead-contaminated soil, Installation of a Cap, andGround-Water Pumping and Treatment

Risks of direct contact eliminated.

Current and future risks from groiningestion reduced to 10 .

If metals are present, ash will be disiRCRA landfill.

O&M required for ground-water tiand cap. Failure of cap would haeffect because soil would be fixed.

Current and future risk of directeliminated.

Current and future risk from inge;contaminated ground water reduced t

May need additional controls ifprocess does not meet perfcspecifications.


EXHIBIT C-2 (continued)

ALTERNATIVE NOTES

3. In-situ Soil Vapor Extraction of TCE-contaminated soil. Installation of a Cap overLead-contaminated soil, and Ground-waterPumping and Treatment

4. Cap of TCE and Lead-contaminated soils andNatural Attenuation of Ground Water

5. No Action

O&M needed for cap and ground-watercontrols. Failure of cap would have littleeffect on ground water because of soilfixation, although direct contact may be aconcern.

Risk of direct contact with soil is controlled.Inherent hazards of TCE-contaminatedmaterial reduced to health-based levels.

Current and future risk of exposure to groundwater reduced to 1C'6.

May need additional controls if metals arepresent in the TCE contaminated area becausevapor extraction would not remove metals.Such unidentified metals could leach into theground water.

O&M required for ground-water treatment for25-40 years. Long-term maintenance of caprequired. Potential failure of cap would resultin longer ground-water restoration time frame.

Risks of direct contact eliminated as long ascap maintained. However, inherent hazard ofwaste remains. There is a potential for cap tofaiL Cap will need maintenacne andreplacement in future.

Current risk of exposure from ground-wateringestion eliminated by providing alternativewater supply. Institutional controls used tocontrol future use of ground water.

Potential failure of institutional controls mayresult in exposure to contaminated groundwater during attenuation period.

Existing risk remains. Future risk greater asplume migrates to residents. Evenutally,natural attenuation may decrease risk.

No controls over remaining contamination.No long-term management employed.


CO

*nfJJ

0EXHIBIT C-3 ^

SUMMARY OF EVALUATION WORKSHEET °


iiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiliimi—mi'iiim.imniiitMHaBaiB.uaiittiminiiiiiiTiiiniiriiriihifH-iiHiBnfllnlii'mlninniH l

SUMMARY OF EVALUATION WORKSHEET

The exhibit below summarizes the relative ranking of the alternatives in terms of the primary balancingcriteria. For puiposes of clear, consistent presentation, the alternatives can be discussed in order of ^best to worst on the "Comparative Analysis" section of the ROD.

CRITERION Alternatives

4) Most

Least5) Most

Least

l)Most1A) Long-term Effectiveness

1B) Permanence

Least2) Most

2) Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility,and Volume Through Treatment

Least3) Most

3) Implementability

Least

4) Short-term Effectiveness

5) Cost


APPENDIX D

HELPFUL HINTS: HOW TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT DECISION DOCUMENTS. -T TO HEADQUARTERS

January 17, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Cite

APPENDIX D

HELPFUL HINTS: HOW TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT DECISION DOCUMENTSTO HEADQUARTERS

After a decision document - ProposedPlan, ROD, ESD. or ROD Amendment - isissued, a copy should be sent as soon as possibleto the following office in Headquarters:

ROD ClearinghouseHazardous Site Control Division

(OS-220W)U.S. EPA401 M Street, SWWashington. DC 20460

The following procedures should be followed inpreparing and submitting decision documents toHeadquarters.

1. FORMAT- -"-

• One_7clear. "LEGIBLE copy of the' "document (Proposed Plan, ROD, ESD,

or ROD Amendment) should beprovided to Headquarters. In addition* aWordPerfect version 5.0 copy of theROD and/or ROD Amendment should beprovided on a diskette.

• All documents should follow the formatdescribed in this guidance.

• All RODs and ROD Amendments shouldbe single spaced.

• All documents should come toHeadquarters completely assembled andlegible. Do not send sections separately.

• For RODs and ROD Amendments, THESIGNED AND DATED SIGNATUREPAGE SHOULD ALWAYS BEINCLUDED.

2. ATTACHMENTS. CHARTS. TABLES.MAPS. AND EXHIBITS

• All columns and text should bedisplayed completely.

• Computer printouts should be LEGIBLE,especially cost sheets. Dot-matrixprintouts do not copy well.

• Try to avoid including reduceddocuments (e.g., tables and texts),because these documents tend to beillegible.

3. COST TABLES

• All columns and figures in the costtables should be LEGIBLE, especiallythose that apply to the selectedalternative.

• Costs should be broken down intocapital, operation and maintenance, andpresent-worth costs.

4. ENFORCEMENT-CONFIDENTIALINSERTS

Enforcement-confidential pages shouldbe labeled as such cleariy andCONSPICUOUSLY.

January 17, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or CiteD-l

APPENDIX E

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

January 17, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Gte

APPENDIX E

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The following is a list of additional guidance documents that may be useful in preparingSuperfund decision documents or are pertinent to the remedial decision-making process.

1. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)(PI-. 96-510), as amended by roe Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizancn Act of 1986(SARA) (PI-. 99-499).

2. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Final Rule, 40 CFR Pan 300(54 FR 8666). March 8. 1990.

3. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (InterimFinal), U.S. EPA. OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. October 1988.

4. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manuals. Part I, Interim Final, U.S. EPA, OSWERDirective 9234.1-01, August 1988, and Pat II, OSWER Directive 9234.1-02. July 1989.

5. Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook, U.S. EPA, OSWER Directive 9230.0-3B. June1988.

6. "" Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance. U.S. EPA. OSWER Directive 9355.0-4A. June 1986.

7. Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Groundwater at Superfund Sites (Interim Final),U.S. EPA. OSWER Directive 9283.1-2, December 1988.

8. Guidance on Administrative Records for Selection of CERCLA Response Actions (Interim). U.S.EPA, OSWER Directive 9833.3. March 1989.

9. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I " Human Health Evaluation Manual ((PartA) Interim Final, EPA/540/1-89/002, December 1989).

10. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfimd: Volume II — Environmental Evaluation Manual(Interim Final, EPA/540/1-89/001, March 1989).

11. Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions, FinalRule (55 FR 22994). June 5. 1990.

January 17, 1992 Draft * * * Do Not Quote or Cite

E-l