-------
Criteria
Alternative t
No Action
Alternative 2
Cap, Alternate Water Supply,
Natural Attenuation of Ground
Water
Alternative 3
In-situ Soil Vapor Extraction,
Cap, Ground Water Pump and
Treat
Alternative 4
In-situ Soil Vapor Extraction, In-situ
Soil Stabilization, Cap, Ground
Water Pump and Treat
Alternative 5
In-situ Soil Stabilization, Cap,
Incineration, Ground Water Pump
and Treat
IMPLEMENTABILITY
Ability to Construct and
Operate
No construction or operation.
Ease of Doing More Action if
Needed
Ability to Monitor
Effectiveness
Ability to Obtain Approvals
and Coordinate with Other
Agencies
Availability of Equipment,
Specialists, and Materials
May require ROD amendment future
problems arise.
No monitoring. Failure to detect
contamination means potential
ingestion of contaminated ground
water.
No approval necessary.
None required.
Availability of Technologies None required.
Easy to construct. Would
require materials handling of
about 50,000 cy of soil and
clay.
Easy to extend cap. Could
implement ground-water
treatment if necessary. Future
installation of treatment system
may require cap intrusion.
Monitoring and maintenance
inspections will give notice of
failure before significant
exposure occurs.
Same as Alternative 1.
No special equipment,
material, or specialists
required. Cap materials
available within 20 miles.
Cap technology readily
available.
More extensive than Alternate
2. Straightforward construction
and operation of treatment
systems, in addition to cap.
Cap construction would require
materials handling of 25,000 cy
of soil and clay.
Easy to extend ground-water
extraction system, vapor
extraction system, and cap.
Would not require intrusion into
cap to extend treatment
systems.
Treatment systems are easily
monitored to determine
effectiveness. Effectiveness of
cap evaluated by inspection.
More extensive approvals
needed. Demonstrate
compliance with air standards.
Process for NPDES permit
required.
Personnel to operate vapor
extraction system are readily
available. Cap materials
available within 20 miles.
Vapor extraction well
developed and commercially
available. Will require pilot
testing.
More extensive than Alternative 3
due to stabilization. Logistics of
three treatment processes requires
more effort. Otherwise similar to
Alternative 3.
Fairly complete alternative. Can
increase volume of or modify all
technologies easily, if needed.
Same as Alternative 2.
Same as Alternatives.
See Alternative 3.
Vapor extraction and stabilization
technologies well developed and
commercially available. Will require
pilot testing.
Incineration is complex to operate,
requires large area on-site.
Otherwise similar to Alternative 3.
Complete alternative. Can most
easily handle varying volumes or
concentrations.
Same as Alternative 2.
Most extensive. Need to
demonstrate compliance with
technical content of incinerator
permit. Otherwise same as
Alternative 3.
Need mobile incinerator and
trained operators. Need treatment
plant operators. Closest source of
incinerator is 500 miles from site.
Incineration and stabilization
technologies well developed and
commercially available. Will
require pilot testing.
COST
Capital Cost
Annual O&M Cost
Present Worth Cost
$0
0
0
$4,200,000
60,000
4,800,000
$3,300,000
440,000
7,300,000
$6,200,000
460,000
10,200,000
$13,000,000
1,700,000
16,000,000

-------
Criteria
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5

No Action
Cap, Alternate Water Supply,
Natural Attenuation of Ground
Water
In-situ Soil Vapor Extraction,
Cap, Ground Water Pump and
Treat
In-situ Soil Vapor Extraction, In-situ
Soil Stabilization, Cap, Ground
Water Pump and Treat
In-situ Soil Stabilization, Cap,
Incineration, Ground Water Pump
and Treat
STATE ACCEPTANCE






Not Acceptable. Not protective of
human health and environment.
Not Acceptable. Not a
permanent solution.
Acceptable.
Acceptable.
Acceptable.
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE






Not Acceptable.
Not Acceptable.
Acceptable.
Acceptable.
Not Acceptable. Community
opposed to Incineration.
G)
c
a
CD
O
5
CD
Qj
3'
CQ
CO
•§
CD
6
=5
a
o
o
(ft
CD
a
"T3
cy
=5
33
CD
O
O
O
CD
O
cy
a
33
CD
3
CD
X
CO
CD
CD
O
=5
D
CD
O
D
o
0
1
CD
=3

-------
Chapter 6: Writing the Record of Decision
6.3.11 Principal Threat Wastes
The NCP establishes an expectation that EPA will
use treatment to address the principal threats posed by
a site wherever practicable (NCP §300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A)).
The "principal threat" concept is applied to the charac-
terization of "source materials" at a Superfund site. A
source material is material that includes or contains haz-
ardous substances, pollutants or contaminants that act
as a reservoir for migration of contamination to ground
water, surface water or air, or acts as a source for direct
exposure. Contaminated ground water generally is not
considered to be a source material; however, Non-Aque-
ous Phase Liquids (NAPLs) in ground water may be
viewed as source material. Principal threat wastes are
those source materials considered to be highly toxic or
highly mobile that generally cannot be reliably contained,
or would present a significant risk to human health or
the environment should exposure occur. 20 The deci-
sion to treat these wastes is made on a site-specific basis
through a detailed analysis of the alternatives using the
nine remedy selection criteria. Remedies which involve
treatment of principal threat wastes likely will satisfy
the statutory preference for treatment as a principal el-
ement, although this will not necessarily be true in all
cases. This section of the Decision Summary should dis-
cuss the source materials constituting principal threats at
the site and discuss how the alternatives will address
them. [For definitions and examples, see Highlight 6-
26 and ^4 Guide to Vrincipal Threat and Low Level Threat
Wastes, OSWER 9380.3-06FS, November 1991.]
20 The reasonably anticipated future land use at a site is signifi-
cant in defining principal threat waste areas. Pursuant to the NCP
and the 1995 land use guidance, current land use and reasonably
anticipated future land use should be considered in identifying real-
istic exposure scenarios for estimating site risks. When the baseline
risks associated with the reasonably anticipated future land use
trigger action, the definition of principal threat wastes may be
determined by the reasonably anticipated future land use scenario as
well. For example, soil contamination that could be considered a
principal threat under a residential exposure scenario might not be
considered a principal threat under a non-residential exposure sce-
nario. Although no "threshold level" of risk has been established to
identify principal threat waste, a general rule of thumb is to con-
sider as a principal threat those source materials with toxicity and
mobility characteristics that combine to pose a potential risk several
orders of magnitude greater than the risk level that is acceptable for
the current or reasonably anticipated future land use, given realistic
exposure scenarios (Rules of Thumb for Superfund Remedy Selection,
EPA 540-R-97-013, August 1997).
6.3.12 Selected Remedy
This section expands upon the details of the Se-
lected Remedy from that which was provided in the
Description of Alternatives section of the ROD. This sec-
tion should provide the appropriate level of detail about
the engineering details and estimated costs for the Se-
lected Remedy so that the design engineer has enough
information to initiate the design phase of the response
action. This will minimize the likelihood of unantici-
pated changes to the scope and intent of the Selected
Remedy. This discussion should be organized in four
sections: (1) Summary of the Rationale for the Selected
Remedy (2) Description of the Selected Remedy, (3)
Summary of Estimated Remedy Costs, and (4) Ex-
pected Outcomes of Selected Remedy.
1)	Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Rem-
edy
This section provides a concise discussion of the
principal factors upon which the remedy selection deci-
sion is based. While a number of these reasons may be
reiterated in the statutory determinations (Section 6.3.13),
or be based on one or more of those determinations, a
discussion of the key rationale for remedy selection is a
logical outgrowth of the previous summary discussion
of the comparison of alternatives, and can serve as a
bridge to the expanded discussion of the selected rem-
edy and statutory determinations.
The decisive factors that led to selecting the rem-
edy should be described (i.e, a description of how the
selected remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs
with respect to the balancing and modifying criteria).
2)	Description of the Selected Remedy
This section should expand on the description of
the Selected Remedy from that which was provided in
the Description of Alternatives (Section 6.3.9). Take the
bulleted list of the major remedy components and ex-
pand, where appropriate, to an increased level of detail
(i.e., the level of detail one would provide to a subse-
quent Remedial Project Manager or PRP to implement
the Remedial Design for the project).21 While perhaps
21 This section of the ROD should mention that the remedy
may change somewhat as a result of the remedial design and con-
struction processes. Changes to the remedy described in the ROD
will be documented using a technical memorandum in the Admin-
istrative Record, an ESD, or ROD amendment (in accordance with
the procedures described in Chapter 7).
6-40

-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
Highlight 6-26 : Key Definitions for Identifying Source Materials
Constituting Principal Threats
The NCP establishes an expectation that EPA will use treatment to address the principal threats posed by a site
wherever practicable (NCP §300.430(a)(1)(iii)(A)). Identifying principal threat wastes combines concepts of both
hazard and risk. In general, principal threat wastes are those source materials considered to be highly toxic or
highly mobile which generally cannot be contained in a reliable manner or would present a significant risk to
human health or the environment should exposure occur. Conversely, non-principal threat wastes are those
source materials that generally can be reliably contained and that would present only a low risk in the event of
exposure. The manner in which principal threats are addressed generally will determine whether the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal element is satisfied.
Wastes that generally will be considered to constitute principal threats include, but are not limited to, the follow-
ing:
•	Liquid source material - waste contained in drums, lagoons or tanks, free product in the subsurface (i.e.,
NAPLs) containing contaminants of concern (generally excluding ground water).
•	Mobile source material - surface soil or subsurface soil containing high concentrations of chemicals of
concern that are (or potentially are) mobile due to wind entrainment, volatilization (e.g., VOCs), surface runoff,
or subsurface transport.
•	Highly-toxic source material - buried drummed non-liquid wastes, buried tanks containing non-liquid wastes,
or soils containing significant concentrations of highly toxic materials.
Wastes that generally will not constitute principal threats include, but are not limited to, the following:
•	Non-mobile contaminated source material of low to moderate toxicity - surface soil containing chemicals of
concern that generally are relatively immobile in air or ground water (i.e., non-liquid, low volatility, low leachabil-
ity contaminants such as high molecular weight compounds) in the specific environmental setting.
•	Low toxicity source material - soil and subsurface soil concentrations not greatly above reference dose levels
or that present an excess cancer risk near the acceptable risk range were exposure to occur.
Source: A Guide to Principal Threat and Low Level Threat Wastes (OSWER 9380.3-06FS, November 1991).
more detailed, the description of remedial components
provided in this section should nonetheless be consis-
tent with initial descriptions of the alternative provided
earlier in the ROD.
One specific area of the Selected Remedy that
should be expanded upon is the description of the in-
stitutional control components of the remedy. Describe
the institutional controls as explicitly as possible. Include
performance goals (e.g., restrict access to land), the means
of implementing the controls (i.e., conveyance), and the
implementing entity (e.g., private party or governmental
entity). If a separate institutional controls implementa-
tion document has been developed (e.g., Institutional
Controls Plan), this document should be summarized
in this section of the ROD as well (Institutional Controls:
A Reference Manual, March 1998 draft).
3) Summary of the Estimated Remedy Costs
One aspect of the Selected Remedy that should be
described in detail is the cost estimate for implementing
the Selected Remedy. This subsection should present a
more detailed estimated cost breakdown than that pro-
vided in the Description of Alternatives section. Although
this information may also be available in the Feasibility
Study, a much broader public audience is interested in
what is being spent on Superfund cleanups. RODS
serve as the primary data source for a host of internal
and external parties interested in analyzing the costs of
Superfund cleanups. Because all RODs are available to
the public and are easier to obtain than large documents
from the Administrative Record file for a site, it is im-
portant to present the estimated costs of the cleanup
plan in as much detail as possible in the ROD.
6-41

-------
Chapter 6: Writing the Record of Decision
	
Highlight 6-27: Tips on Writing the "Selected Remedy" Section
•	Expand on the bullet list of major remedy components presented in the Description of Alternatives to give a
design engineer enough information to correctly interpret the technical intent of the ROD.
•	Present a clear and well annotated cost estimate summary table. The detailed cost information for the Selected
Remedy is generally presented in the FS. This summary table, or the relevant information, can be copied and
incorporated into a summary table similar to the one presented in Highlight 6-29.
•	Present the basis and rationale for cleanup levels in a table and explain in the text where and how they will be
applied during the response action.
This generally can be accomplished by presenting a
one to two-page cost estimate summary table (in the
same level of detail as provided in the FS). This engi-
neering-oriented "activity-based" estimate should be
determined from the major construction and annual
O&M activities anticipated to implement each major
component of the Selected Remedy. This estimate
should include estimated capital, annual O&M, and to-
tal present worth costs; discount rate; and the number
of years over which the remedy cost estimate is pro-
jected. For example, if the Selected Remedy is com-
prised of a soil and ground-water component, major
construction and annual O&M activities and their as-
sociated unit and total cost estimates should be clearly
presented in a tabular format. If more information is
available, this section should NOT merely present lump
sum capital, annual O&M, and total present worth cost
estimates for the entire remedy. The presentation of
the cost estimate should make basic assumptions clear
(i.e., discount rate and duration of O&M) and identify
sources of uncertainty in capital and annual O&M cost
estimates. An example of an "activity-based estimate"
is contained in Highlight 6-29. Highlight 6-28 provides
standard cost estimate disclaimer language to acknowl-
edge the uncertainty associated with cost estimates. Tips
for developing this table are provided in Highlight 6-
30.22
Additional guidance for remedy cost estimating is
provided in the Remedy CostEstimatingProceduresManual:
A. Guide to Devehping and Documenting Remedial Alternative
CostEstimates During the Feasibility Study (EPA 540-R-98-
045, December 4, 1998 Final Review Draft).
	
Highlight 6-28: Standard Cost
Estimate Disclaimer Language
The information in this cost estimate summary
table is based on the best available informa-
tion regarding the anticipated scope of the re-
medial alternative. Changes in the cost ele-
ments are likely to occur as a result of new
information and data collected during the engi-
neering design ofthe remedial alternative. Major
changes may be documented in the form of a
memorandum in the Administrative Record file,
an ESD, or a ROD amendment. This is an
order-of-magnitude engineering cost estimate
that is expected to be within +50 to -30 percent
of the actual project cost.
22 For response actions where a combination of several alter-
natives evaluated in the FS become the basis for the Selected Rem-
edy, and hence a detailed cost estimate is not contained in the FS
background materials, the services of the Army Corps of Engineers
or a RACs technical support contractor should be obtained to con-
struct a more detailed cost estimate for inclusion in the ROD.
6-42

-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
Highlight 6-29: Example Table Format - Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy
Capital Costs for Remedy Component 1

Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
1.
Mobilization/Demobilization
-
LS
-
$11,925
2.
Site Preparation
Decommission Utilities

LS



Perform Site Survey
3
Day
$910.00
$2,730

Install Temporary Construction Fencing
3,000
LF
$5.65
$16,950

Remove & Replace Existing Monitoring Wells
11
Well
$3,500.00
$38,500
3.
Structural Demolition and Disposal
Building Demolition

LS

$195,314

Dispose of Drums w/Contaminated Materials
374
Drum
$136.00
$50,864
4.
Recycle misc. Items (tires, auto tanks, pipes,
etc.)
Storage Tank Removal & Reclamation
25
8
Ton
Tank
$75.00
$6,750.00
$1,875
$54,000
5.
Water Control





Construct Dewatering Pad
2,500
SY
$45.17
$112,925

Install Diversion Ditches and Berms
1,650
LF
$3.64
$6,006
6.
Consolidation of Solids





Temporarily Relocate Residents
160
Person
$410.00
$65,600

Excavation of Contaminated Soil
14,300
CY
$15.12
$216,216

Hydraulic Dredging of Lagoon Sediment
3,300
CY
$3.00
$9,900

Dewater w/Plate-Frame Filter Press
3,300
CY
$38.75
$127,875

Hauling
14,300
CY
$2.25
$32,175

Backfill Excavations w/Clean Fill
19,400
CY
$4.69
$90,986

Clean Topsoil & Hydro-seed
14,300
CY
$16.00
$228,800
7.
8.
Soil Disposal (Off-Site Landfill)
Safety Monitoring and Sampling
19,400
CY
$250.00
$4,850

Soil Sampling and Analysis (1 sample/lot)
80
Lot
$850.00
$68,000
9.
Health and Safety Expenditures (30 people @
$60/person/day)
Wastewater T reatment
90
350,000
Day
Gallon
$1,800.00
$0.45
$162,000
$157,500

NAPL Disposal
10,000
Gallon
$4.00
$40,000
10.
Facility Cover





Place 2-foot Topsoil Layer
33,700
CY
$16.00
$539,200

Recontour/ Shape & Grade ACC Facility
50,550
SY
$0.53
$26,792

Hydroseed
450,000
SF
$0.06
$27,000
Subtotal
Contingency Allowances (15%)
Project Management and Support (10%)
Total Capital Cost
$7,134,633
$1,070,195
$713,463
$8,918,291
6-43

-------
Chapter 6: Writing the Record of Decision
Highlight 6-29: Example Table Format - Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected Remedy
(continued)
Annua! Operation and Maintenance Costs for Remedy Component 1
Description
1.	Water Monitoring
Sampling
Laboratory Analysis
2.	Site Inspections/ Cover Maintenance
Subtotal
Contingency Allowances (2£9&i)rtingency Allowances (25%)
Project Management and Support (15%)
Quantity
15
15
15
Unit
Year
Year
Year
Total Annual 0& M Cost
Unit Cost
$7,470.00
$11,240.00
$400.00
$19,110.00
$4,777.50
$2,866.50
$26,754.00
Summary of Present Worth Analysis
Year
Capital Cost
Annual O&M
Total Cost
Discount Factor (7%)
Present Worth


Cost



0
$8,918,291

$8,918,291
1.000
$8,918,291
1

$26,754
$26,754
0.935
$25,015
2

$26,754
$26,754
0.873
$23,356
3

$26,754
$26,754
0.816
$21,831
4

$26,754
$26,754
0.763
$20,413
5

$26,754
$26,754
0.713
$19,076
6

$26,754
$26,754
0.666
$17,818
7

$26,754
$26,754
0.623
$16,668
8

$26,754
$26,754
0.582
$15,571
9

$26,754
$26,754
0.544
$14,554
10

$26,754
$26,754
0.508
$13,591
11

$26,754
$26,754
0.475
$12,708
12

$26,754
$26,754
0.444
$11,879
13

$26,754
$26,754
0.415
$11,103
14

$26,754
$26,754
0.388
$10,381
15

$26,754
$26,754
0.362
$9,685
TOTALS
$8,918,291
$401,310
$9,319,601

$9,161,940
Total Present Worth Cost
$9,161,940
Notes
Unit costs are for illustration only and should not be used for cost estimating purposes.
Capital cost estimates are not discounted because the construction work will be performed in the first year. O&M costs are reported
as present worth estimates given a 7% discount rate for a 15 year duration. Cost estimates are based on soil volume estimates which
may be refined when remedy is designed. Cost estimates are within +50 to -30% accuracy expectation. Project management and
support should account for the cost of the RD and the administrative/project management costs for the RD/RA and O&M.
LS= Lump Sum
LF= Linear Foot
SY= Square Yard
CY= Cubic Yard
6-44

-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
Highlight 6-30: Tips for Presenting Summary of Cost Estimate for Selected Remedy
•	Present a summary table of the major capital and annual O&M cost elements for the Selected Remedy. This 1-
2 page table should present the major construction and O&M activities required to implement each remedy
component along with their associated unit and total costs. See Highlight 6-29 for an example of this format.
•	Present the major cost elements in a logically organized sequence, itemized to a level of detail that is appropriate
for the Selected Remedy. For example: project design, management and support, site work/preparation,
sampling and analysis, treatment system costs, containment system costs, post-treatment/containment costs,
annual O&M costs for treatment/containment system, and annual O&M costs for institutional controls/monitoring/
five-year reviews (cost elements should be itemized below these levels if possible).
•	Use footnotes to this summary table to define terminology, major assumptions, and sources of information
used in developing the cost estimate.
•	Identify the discount rate used for calculating total present worth costs (current OSWER policy is 7%).
•	Identify the time frame over which O&M expenditures are anticipated (i.e., O&M duration or period of performance).
•	If O&M activities are expected to exceed 30 years, and the cost estimate does not forecast beyond that time
period, explain how the cost estimate accounts for long-term O&M costs (e.g., replacement costs are assumed
as part of O&M estimate, capital costs should be recalculated after 30 years, data obtained from remedial
action and 5-year reviews will be utilized to refine long-term O&M cost estimates).
•	Identify major sources of uncertainty and potential cost drivers for the reader so that the information is not
misinterpreted. If a sensitivity analysis was performed on the cost estimate, summarize the results.
•	Qualify all cost information reported in RODs as estimates, with an accuracy expectation of +50 to -30%.
These estimates are refined as the remedy is designed and implemented. Even after the remedial action is
constructed, the total project cost should still be reported as an estimate due to the uncertainty associated with
annual O&M expenditures.
4) Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy
This section should present the expected outcomes
of the Selected Remedy in terms of resulting land and
ground-water uses and risk reduction achieved as a re-
sult of the response action. The discussion should de-
scribe the following for each portion or media of the
site (if applicable). Highlight 6-31 gives an example of
the type of information that would be included in this
section of the ROD.
•	Available uses of land upon achieving cleanup
levels. Note time frame to achieve available
use (e.g., commercial or light industrial use avail-
able in three years when cleanup levels are
achieved);
•	Available uses of ground water upon achiev-
ing cleanup levels. Note time frame to achieve
available use (e.g., restricted use for industrial
purposes in TI waiver zone, drinking water use
in non-TI zone upon achieving cleanup levels
in 100 years);
•	Final cleanup levels for each medium (i.e., con-
taminant-specific remediation goals), basis for
cleanup levels, and risk at cleanup levels (if ap-
propriate).23 See Highlight 6-32 for example
table format and language (NCP
§300.4300 (5) (m) (A));
•	Anticipated socio-economic and community
revitalization impacts, where such information
23 Cleanup Levels: Final cleanup levels establish acceptable
contaminant-specific exposure levels that are protective of human
health and the environment. They are not formally determined
until the site remedy is ready to be selected and are established in the
ROD. In the ROD, it is preferable to use the term "remediation
level" or "cleanup level" rather than "remediation goal" in order to
make clear that the Selected Remedy establishes binding require-
ments (Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I. Human
Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Prelimi-
nary Remediation Goals), Interim Final (EPA 540-R-92-003, Decem-
ber 1991).
6-45

-------
Chapter 6: Writing the Record of Decision
Highlight 6-31: Example Expected Outcomes for Selected Remedy

Site Area A:
Permanent Waste
Management Area
Site Area B:
Restricted Use
Site Area C:
Unrestricted Use
Site
Scenario
Exposure controlled through
use of engineering and
institutional controls ONLY
Exposure controlled through
use of treatment, followed by
containment, and/or institutional
controls
Exposure controlled through
use of treatment and off-site
disposal of residuals {i.e.,
nothing left on-site above
health-based levels)
Summarize
in Expected
Outcomes
Section of
ROD
•	Available uses of land and
time frame (e.g., long-term
waste management)
•	Available uses of ground
water and time frame {e.g.,
restricted use in Tl waiver
zone, drinking water use in
non-TI zone upon
achieving cleanup levels in
50-70 years)
•	Anticipated socio-economic
and community
revitalization impacts
•	Anticipated environmental
and ecological benefits
•	Available uses of land and
time frame (e.g., commercial
or light industrial use
available in three years)
•	Available uses of ground
water and time frame {e.g.,
restricted use for industrial
purposes in Tl waiver zone,
drinking water use in non-TI
zone upon achieving
cleanup levels in 50-70
years)
•	Cleanup levels, basis, and
residual risk (table)
•	Anticipated socio-economic
and community {e.g., job
creation and tax revenues)
revitalization impacts
•	Anticipated environmental
and ecological benefits {e.g.,
wetlands restoration)
•	Available uses of land and
time frame {e.g.,
residential redevelopment
available in five years)
•	Available uses of ground
water use and time frame
{e.g., unrestricted drinking
water use available in 10
years)
•	Cleanup levels, basis, and
residual risk (table)
•	Anticipated socio-
economic and community
revitalization impacts
{e.g., increased property
values and removal of
urban blight)
•	Anticipated environmental
and ecological benefits
{e.g., sensitive habitat
restored)
6-46

-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
Highlight 6-32: Example Table Format - Cleanup Levels for Chemicals of Concern
Media: Soil
Site Area: Waste Area B
Available Use: Residential
Controls to Ensure Restricted Use (if applicable): N/A		i		
Chemical of Concern1	Cleanup Level	Basis for Cleanup Level3 Risk At Cleanup Level4
Benzo(a)pyrene	0.026 mg/kg (ppm)	Risk Assessment	Cancer risk =1x10 °
4,4'-DDT	0.012 mg/kg (ppm)	Risk Assessment	Cancer risk =1x10 °
Dieldrin	0.54 mg/kg (ppm)	Risk Assessment	Cancer risk =1x10°
Notes
1	Identify Chemicals of Concern from risk assessment.
2	Provide units of measure.
3	Examples include: Compliance with Federal or State ARARs {e.g., MCLs or non-zero MCLGs), health or ecological risk-
based levels, and background levels. If health or ecological risk-based levels are identified as the basis, provide the cancer
or noncancer risk level {e.g., 1x10"6 or HQ = 1) that the cleanup level will achieve.
4	Specify the carcinogenic and/or non-carcinogenic risk associated with the cleanup level. Present the exposure scenario(s)
upon which cleanup levels are based in a footnote to this table {e.g., cleanup levels and residual risk information presented
in this table are based on the risk associated with exposure to soil contamination through volatilization and inhalation by
future on-site residents (lifetime)).
Example Language Describing Cleanup Levels for Chemicals of Concern
The purpose of this response action is to control risks posed by direct contact with soil and ground water and to minimize
migration of contaminants to ground water. The results of the baseline risk assessment indicate that existing conditions at the
site pose an excess lifetime cancer risk of 2.6 x 10"2 from direct contact with contaminated soils and 2.5 x 10" from ingestion of
contaminated ground water. This risk relates to the benzo(a)pyrene, DDT, and dieldrin concentrations in soil and ground water.
This remedy shall address all soils contaminated with benzo(a)pyrene in excess of 0.026 mg/kg, DDT in excess of 0.012 mg/kg
and dieldrin in excess of 0.54 mg/kg, which each would correspond to an excess lifetime cancer risk of 10"6. Since no Federal or
State ARARs exist for soil, the action levels for soil were determined through a site-specific risk analysis. These soil cleanup
levels shall also be protective at the 10"6 excess cancer risk level for each chemical of concern. Treatment shall be monitored to
ensure that cleanup levels are achieved. The site is expected to be available for unrestricted residential land use as a result of
the remedy.
6-47

-------
Chapter 6: Writing the Record of Decision
is readily available and sufficiently documented
(e.g., increased property values, reduced water
supply costs, jobs created, increased tax rev-
enues due to redevelopment, environmental
justice concerns addressed, enhanced human
uses of ecological resources); and
• Anticipated environmental and ecological ben-
efits, where such information is readily avail-
able and sufficiently documented (e.g., restora-
tion of sensitive ecosystems, protection of en-
dangered species, protection of wildlife popu-
lations, wetlands restoration).
6.3.13 Statutory Determinations
The purpose of this section is to provide a brief,
site-specific description of how the Selected Remedy
satisfies the statutory requirements of CERCLA §121
(as required by NCP §300.430(f)(5)(ii)) and explain the
five-year review requirements for the Selected Remedy.
Highlight 6-33 illustrates the relationship between the
nine evaluation criteria and the statutory requirements.
1) Protection of Human Health and the Environ-
ment
This discussion must describe how the Selected
Remedy will adequately protect human health and the
environment through treatment, engineering controls,
and/or institutional controls (NCP §300.430(f)(5)(ii)).
Specifically, the remedy should be described in terms
of how the existing or potential risks posed by the site
or operable unit through each pathway will be elimi-
nated, reduced, or controlled by the response action.
This discussion should also indicate that exposure levels
will be reduced to protective ARAR levels or to within
EPA's generally acceptable risk range of 10~4 to 10~6 for
carcinogenic risk and below the HI of 1 for non-
carcinogens. Finally, this discussion should reflect that
the implementation of the Selected Remedy will not
pose unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media im-
pacts. If the site presents ecological risks, then there
should be a brief discussion of how the remedy pro-
vides adequate protection of the environment. See also
Bask Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1. Human
Health Evaluation M.anual (Part C, Risk Evaluation of Reme-
dial Alternatives), Interim Vinal (EPA 540-R-92-004, De-
cember 1991).
2) Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements24
NCP §§300.430(f)(5)(ii)(B) and (C) require that a
ROD:
•	Describe the Federal and State ARARs that the
remedy will attain; and
•	Describe the Federal and State ARARs that the
remedy will not meet, the waiver invoked, and
the justification for invoking the waiver.
The ARARs that the Selected Remedy will attain
should be listed and briefly described. Provide the regu-
latory citation in an appropriate level of detail. Some
remedies may require a more lengthy discussion of a
statute or regulation. A tabular summary should be
used if appropriate. See Highlight 6-34 for an example.
This section should also describe other available
information that does not constitute an ARAR (e.g., ad-
visories, criteria, and guidance) that should be consid-
ered in the analysis if it helps to ensure protectiveness
or is otherwise appropriate for use in a specific alterna-
tive. Such information is commonly referred to as TBCs
(To Be Considered). Use of a TBC should be justified
for the record.25
24	Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) include substantive provisions of any promulgated Fed-
eral or more stringent State environmental standards, requirements,
criteria, or limitations that are determined to be legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements for a CERCLA site or ac-
tion. These requirements may include regulations promulgated un-
der the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and other Federal or State
environmental laws. Applicable requirements are those clean-up stan-
dards, standards of control, and other substantive environmental
protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under
Federal or State law that specifically address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circum-
stance found at a CERCLA site. Relevant and appropriate requirements
are requirements that, while not legally "applicable" to circum-
stances at a particular CERCLA site, address problems or situations
sufficientiy similar to those encountered at the site that their use is
well-suited. (See the NCP at 40 CFR 300.5 for definitions.) Addi-
tional guidance on ARARs is provided in CERCLA Compliance with
Other Laws Manual: Parts I and II (EPA 540-G-89-006, August 1988
and 540-G-89-009, August 1989), and the NCP preamble at 55 FR
8741-8766.
25	Include policies or support documents for the TBC in the
Administrative Record file, or incorporate by reference. If the
validity of TBCs is challenged, justify the use in the Responsiveness
Summary (see Section 6.4).
6-48

-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
Highlight 6-33: Relationship of the Nine Criteria to the Statutory Findings
NINE CRITERIA
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
AND PERMANENCE
TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR
VOLUME REDUCTION THROUGH
TREATMENT
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
STATE AGENCY ACCEPTANCE
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
fj
STATUTORY FINDINGS
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs OR
JUSTIFICATION OF A WAIVER
mmm
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT
SOLUTIONS AND TREATMENT OR
RECOVERY TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PRACTICABLE ("MEP")
PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A
PRINCIPAL ELEMENT OR EXPLANATION
AS TO WHY PREFERENCE NOT
SATISFIED*
* Remedies which involve treatment of source materials constituting principal threat wastes likely will satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a principal element, although this will not necessarily be true in all cases.
6-49

-------
Chapter 6: Writing the Record of Decision
Highlight 6-34: Example Table Format - Description of ARARs for Selected Remedy
Authority
Medium1
Requirement
Status^
Synopsis of
Requirement3
Action to be Taken
to Attain
Requirement4
Federal
Regulatory
Requirement
Ground
Water
Federal Safe
Drinking
Water
Maximum
Contaminant
Levels
(MCLs)
Relevant and
Appropriate
MCLs have been regulated
for a number of common
organic and inorganic
contaminants. These
levels regulate the
concentrations of
contaminants in public
drinking water supplies and
are considered relevant
and appropriate for
ground-water aquifers
potentially used for
drinking water.
The selected
remedy will comply
with these
regulations through
source control
measures and
monitored natural
attenuation.
State
Regulatory
Requirement
Soil
State
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Rules
Applicable
These rules set forth the
State's definitions and
criteria for establishing
whether waste materials
are hazardous and subject
to associated hazardous
waste regulations. These
rules identify requirements
for hazardous waste
generators and land
disposal restrictions.
The selected
remedy will comply
with these
requirements by
identifying and
properly disposing
of hazardous
wastes through
capping the landfill
with a RCRA C cap.
Federal
Regulatory
Requirement
Wetland
Protection of
Wetlands,
Executive
Order 11990,
40 CFR Part
6
TBC
These requirements
regulate actions that occur
in wetlands and may be
applicable to actions that
may adversely affect
wetlands.
The selected
remedy will cause
an unavoidable loss
of wetlands. The
requirements will be
met through
compensatory
wetland mitigation.
Notes
1	Identify medium (e.g., soil, ground water, air, or hazardous waste).
2	Identity status of requirement {e.g., applicable, relevant and appropriate, or to be considered (TBC)).
3	Provide a brief synopsis of each requirement.
4	Provide a brief description of action to be taken to attain requirement.
6-50

-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
3) Cost-Effectiveness
This discussion explains how the Selected Remedy
meets the statutory requirement that all Superfund rem-
edies be cost-effective. A cost-effective remedy in the
Superfund program is one whose "costs are proportional
to its overall effectiveness" (NCP §300.430(f) (1) (ii) (D)). The
"overall effectiveness" of a remedial alternative is de-
termined by evaluating the following three of the five
balancing criteria used in the detailed analysis of alter-
natives: (1) Long-term effectiveness and permanence;
(2) Reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume (TMV)
through treatment; and, (3) Short-term effectiveness.
"Overall effectiveness is then compared to cost" to deter-
mine whether a remedy is cost-effective (NCP
§300.4300(1) ©(D)).
Additional guidance for making cost-effectiveness
determinations is found in the preamble to the NCP,
which states that decision makers should compare "the
cost to effectiveness of each alternative individually and.. .the cost
and effectiveness of alternatives in relation to one another" (55
FR 8728).
It is important to note that more than one
cleanup alternative can be cost-effective, and the
Superfund program does not mandate the selec-
tion of the most cost-effective cleanup alterna-
tive. In addition, the most cost-effective remedy is not
necessarily the remedy that provides the best balance
of tradeoffs with respect to the remedy selection crite-
ria nor is it necessarily the least-costly alternative that is
both protective of human health and the environment
and ARAR-compliant. Rather, cost-effectiveness is con-
cerned with the reasonableness of the relationship be-
tween the effectiveness afforded by each alternative and
its costs compared to other available options.
A tabular format, or cost-effectiveness matrix, can
be used to summarize this determination. An example
can be found in Highlight 6-35. Each row of the ma-
trix provides detailed information needed to evaluate
the cost-effectiveness of a single remedial alternative.
Each column of the matrix provides detailed informa-
tion about the alternatives under consideration relative
to a single element of cost-effectiveness. To facilitate
cost-effectiveness comparisons, the alternatives should
be listed from top to bottom in order of increasing
cost. The cost-effectiveness summary at the base of
the matrix is the summary of incremental differences
between remedial alternatives with respect to each of
the effectiveness criteria.
4) Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alter-
native Treatment (or Resource Recovery) Technolo-
gies to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)
This discussion describes the rationale for the rem-
edy selected, explaining how the remedy provides the
best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives with
respect to the balancing criteria set out in NCP
§300.430(f) (1) (i) (B), such that it represents the maximum
extent to which permanence and treatment can be prac-
ticably utilized at this site. NCP §300.430(f)(l)(ii)(E)
provides that the balancing shall emphasize the factors
of 'long-term effectiveness" and "reduction of toxic-
ity, mobility or volume through treatment," and shall
consider the preference for treatment and bias against
off-site disposal. The modifying criteria should also be
considered in making this determination. This subsec-
tion should discuss why the selected remedy is believed
to best satisfy the statutory mandates based on the evalu-
ation criteria, compared with the other alternatives, and
why it is the most appropriate solution for the site. This
part of the Decision Summary needs to identify the
one protective, ARAR-compliant, and cost-effective
alternative that the lead agency has concluded utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technolo-
gies to the maximum extent practicable for that site (i.e.,
provides the best balance of trade-offs). The discus-
sion in this subsection should be organized as follows:
•	Explain how the Selected Remedy represents
the maximum extent to which permanent so-
lutions and treatment are practicable at this site
by describing how the Selected Remedy affords
the "best balance of tradeoffs" as compared
to the other options.
•	Highlight trade-offs among alternatives related
to the five balancing and two modifying crite-
ria, which should be discussed in the following
order: (1) long-term effectiveness and perma-
nence, (2) reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment, (3) short-term ef-
fectiveness, (4) implementability, (5) cost, (6)
State acceptance, and (7) community accep-
tance. Discuss which of the criteria were most
decisive in the selection decision. [NOTE: To
6-51

-------
HIGHLIGHT 6*35: Exam pic MalrU of Cost and Effectiveness Data for Hypothetical $|ttl Ground WalCf Control Options
RiLIVANT CONSIDERATIONS FO» COS ["-EFFECTIVENESS DETERMINATION: (Siln mjir;i<:lnri:ilira ri;;il« 1r, onsl-^ffewerfl&s cjrirtgrig;
Cunbniinini. phjirt: MifmrisiiK ^ipipr.::¦>:11 n:i 1 y 4 3 "n liOII CUbiC 'tat 01 gfOjild •¦V-S'fc'' ('DO aoe feel;
1 Mui'udpdl wfrl 1ifi:1 StfviHy 10,00^' pAcpli* iy locji'Kl one rnile dcwr»S|i"adent Iron Sile.
r tJSteme indih'lL; Jdl cancer fiSh lOf luLure un-:;ilei rriiiiHnni^ usinrj prgund water = A ¥ 10 1
AhwutriV
(check bai ft coil^tfcctiya]
Prwwrt Wwlfi
Ineranitntftl
Cost
f-onn Tpmn EffflclivanBEE
and PffrtifiHMtt
Ruductinnaf TMV
riirt.Ugh TfUdltKnt
Short-Temi Etfwtiv*n«.s
') NO Mirtn C


*	Nc r laiy-
lenr nsK b i.ra-
biplf grKj I1*
nmimnmcnl
*	Oai-tliiM ii£ivi:linil
tart?nss irO"
*	hi: lblll.^l£ll Si
*	he rE4k»sn 3i relit U-
*	K rei2i,cx:r.-3l'<:;il.ri;
» sliu'I iwr ns-i lu 'Mj-kcr»
•	'¦IJ¦JlWi-i.fcli- lis-: lj..LiMiiiu ii'.y
*	'to shDi-w 1'iiiK! oi efv fj-vn-"
~	'»1fe tin !.iJ3 DTCfS •STiSJ-Sl^S
nchic-*r>H 'r-po *1- nnltirpl iOTUJlKj-i
2\ Lmfled Acbon, ^
ii i:: 1 l>:r riy inst luli::tirjl
conlrols and ti-iuirJ-
water iTcmloriig
¦laOD.DM
* WlSS.OlHl
• •¦ Nn mrti.ifijn r
li Ji In -urnri hn;iH- nnrt
Ihf ¦?%r3rt*iie^
¦ - Havana n>3 viji,j| expos'
rirJ.: = i
- ¦ r»c rcdwixri -ji :o*«Xf
j ¦ hn iwrthmnn nd r^Wirj'
¦ 1 Nu yl >ul.ru-
• I r<-nih!- lc ffb wi.
¦¦ i snj-l-hfT- nsc kj'Mj-kfa-s
' 1 \bsli:rl inn- nii-i kici:mm.nly
¦ ¦ MJ ^IM'I-Uir il^iCI Cii ferv r-31'm C
- ¦ VLld-
rt?ler t'salrrenl
Icrhnpyay

*¦ SJ.&M.OUO
Hesidua t s< - a * 10'
PuSfOs l?r r^-ecy la lune
Him h^f.|:l<:p|(:n cf
i'nwuLw! "wnlra r»]y
¦bd.'Ci'Cn iiiCxLly
f> (1Mb! il:
' "T^gln-^el 9n|f-3
vnl .nn nl cnnlnm ralnH
'jlClJ-C V.lilMI
6 H-Cftlhi IC n-|:fcrerl
' ¦ mo iddccna sTOfl lenn peic id pii-te's.
¦¦ ¦ N;i -rijdii-ijiii sxrl-lcmi nsk Ijccnniijn^
* ¦ Noailrffcnnn nvcl-lnrni i~pv!i:l a-i crsvt'nnTcrl
Fi:IkiiI ;:l :o;n:'im*>rr?-*s;ia yii-uls i'l
1S m-.i
'S:s idara P
extraction and
Ireilnort
im W1Q.00D
0.000,400
¦' Rssrtua r^< = 31 if
L?* prorua fcr onecy
In Iiit
- ¦ fcQcddr-sia ix?c«.clcr
¦n b.icif,
' • r-c .5ddr wb reach;*
in nnfr.|[y
^ ¦ f-,L. nilr1h:m;i rirei.clKfl
III *i:lj-«r
c rranlh»la npter-eni
' ¦ Mjaldnona &*i-leni risk b'Mtets
'" NosJdOSnp 5-are1-!c*m n^>: f;! csmniM'i !y
¦¦ ¦ N"o«IHoann rpjclfriervi-jir-eiil
Fi?m;HUI jcwln a:h nvcr. in npn^nimnlc y 30
yMir;.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY; f.Sy.mTO.iy of .Toi'Vioasl *osr-e
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
the extent the alternatives are comparable with
respect to a particular criterion (e.g., all options
provide similar degrees of long-term effective-
ness), that criterion would not be a decisive fac-
tor in the selection process].
When "containment" is found to provide the "best
balance of tradeoffs" with respect to the other alterna-
tives evaluated, the extent of treatment found to be
practicable may be "no treatment." Long-term effec-
tiveness is achieved through monitored engineering con-
trols. Where the Selected Remedy does not employ any
treatment or resource recovery technologies, the expla-
nation of the rationale used in the decision under this
statutory finding must include the reasons for finding
treatment to be impracticable.
5)	Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
In addition to the four statutory mandates discussed
previously, the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element shall also be addressed. In writing the
ROD, the rationale for whether or not the preference
for treatment is satisfied should consider whether or
not the Selected Remedy uses treatment to address the
principal threats posed by the site. This discussion should
summarize the source materials constituting principal
threats and the treatment methods used to reduce their
toxicity, mobility, or volume.26 If the Selected Remedy
does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment
as a principal element, this discussion must explain why
it does not do so.
6)	Five-Year Review Requirements
NCP §300.430(Q(4)(ii) requires a five-year review
if the remedial action results in hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remaining on-site above lev-
els that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted expo-
sure. This review evaluates whether a remedy currently
is, or will be, protective of human health and the envi-
26 In evaluating this statutory preference, the site manager
needs to decide whether treatment selected in the ROD constitutes
treatment as a major component of the remedy for that site. Rem-
edies which involve treatment of principal threat wastes likely will
satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element,
although this will not necessarily be true in all cases (e.g., when
principal threat wastes that are treated represent only a small frac-
tion of the wastes managed through containment). Ground-water
treatment remedies also may satisfy the statutory preference, even
though contaminated ground water is not considered a principal
threat waste and even though principal threat source material may
not be treated (A Guide to Principal Threat and Low Level Threat
Wastes (OSWER 9380.3-06FS, November 1991)).
ronment. The ROD must state whether a five-year re-
view is required pursuant to CERCLA § 121(c) and NCP
§300.430(f) (5) (iii)(C). It is also EPA's policy to conduct
five-year reviews under certain circumstances. This sec-
tion of the Decision Summary should also discuss
whether the site may be subject to any reviews as a matter
of policy. Standard language is provided for the Dec-
laration in Section 6.2.5. Highlight 6-36 describes the
different types of five-year reviews. Highlight 6-37
provides an example of the Statutory Determinations sec-
tion. 27
6.3.14 Documentation of Significant
Changes
To fulfill CERCLA § 117(b) and NCP
§§300.430(f)(5)(111)(B) and 300.430(f)(3)(11)(A), the ROD
must document and discuss the reasons for any signifi-
cant changes made to the Selected Remedy. Changes
described in this section must be limited to those that
could have been reasonably anticipated by the public
from the time the Proposed Plan and RI/FS Report
were released for public comment to the final selection
of the remedy. (See Chapter 4 for a complete discus-
sion on pre-ROD significant changes.) Changes that
could not have been anticipated require additional pub-
lic comment (see Chapter 7 for details).
Documentation of significant changes that could
have been reasonably anticipated by the public can be
accomplished in one of two ways, depending upon the
nature of the changes: (1) If the Selected Remedy in-
volves significant change to a feature of the Preferred
Alternative proposed to the public, the documentation
should appear at the end of the ROD after the Statu-
tory Determinations section; or (2) if the significant change
entails changing from the Preferred Alternative discussed
in the Proposed Plan to a different alternative, this should
be documented in a section prior to the description of
alternatives.
Wherever this documentation is placed, this section
of the ROD should identify the Preferred Alternative
from the Proposed Plan, should indicate the significant
changes made, and should provide a rationale for the
27 For Federal facility sites, Executive Order 12580 delegates
the responsibility for conducting five-year reviews, in certain in-
stances, to other Federal agencies, and directs that these activities
be conducted consistent with CERCLA §120. CERCLA §120(a) (2)
provides that the reviews be carried out consistent with the guide-
lines, rules, regulations, and criteria established by the EPA Admin-
istrator.
6-53
-------
Chapter 6: Writing the Record of Decision
Highlight 6-36: Determinations for Five-Year Reviews
The purpose of this Section is to explain determinations for five-year reviews. The NCP states that the ROD
must describe whether a five-year review is required (i.e., a "statutory review"). The ROD should also discuss
whether the site is likely to undergo any discretionary policy reviews (i.e., a "policy review"). The structure and
content of the five-year review is the same for both statutory and policy reviews.
Statutory Reviews
Section 121(c) of CERCLA and NCP §300.430(f)(5)(iii)(C) provide the statutory and legal bases for conducting
five-year reviews. If there are any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site
above levels that would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, EPA shall conduct a review of such
remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that
human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented.
EPA will conduct a statutory review of any site at which a post-SARA remedy, upon attainment of remedial action
objectives and cleanup levels, will not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (i.e., where contami-
nants will remain on-site following remediation at concentrations above health-based levels). For example,
sites at which the selected remedy ensures protectiveness through capping or institutional controls would
require a statutory review. These reviews are triggered by the initiation of the remedial action. For statutory
reviews, initiation of remedial action should be determined by the "actual RA on-site construction" date. See
five-year review guidance for policy on timing of reviews at sites with multiple operable units.
Policy Reviews
Policy reviews are generally triggered by construction completion. Policy reviews should be conducted at sites
where: (1) a post-SARA remedial action will allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure after completion
of the remedial action, but where attainment of remedial action objectives and cleanup levels will take longer
than five years to complete; (2) pre-SARA sites at which the remedy, upon attainment of the remedial action
objectives and cleanup levels, will not allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure; and (3) NPL removal-
only sites, where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants are left on-site above levels that allow
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure and where no remedial action has taken place. Remedies that
include pump and treat systems, bioremediation, or soil vapor extraction will usually take more than five years
to complete, and thus should have a policy review.
Discontinuation of Five-Year Reviews
Statutory five-year reviews may be discontinued when no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. These reviews should
be discontinued only when a five-year review report documents that the contaminants of concern are reported
at acceptable levels based on an appropriate period of monitoring. Post-SARA policy five-year reviews should
generally only be discontinued under the same circumstances as statutory reviews. Other policy reviews
should generally only be discontinued for sites with a pre-SARA remedy or at removal-only NPL sites after at
least one review is completed.
For More Information
For more detailed information regarding five-year reviews see: Structure and Components of Five-Year Re-
views (OSWER Directive 9355.7-02, May 23, 1991); Fact sheet: Structure and Components of Five-Year Re-
views (OSWER Directive 9355.7-02FS1, August 1991); Supplemental Five-Year Review Guidance (OSWER
Directive 9355.7-02A, July 26, 1994); and Second Supplemental Five-Year Review Guidance (OSWER Direc-
tive 9355.7-03A , December 21,1995). An updated and consolidated version of EPA guidance on this subject
is currently available as a review draft under the title "Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance," (OSWER
Directive 9355.7-03, April 1999). Completion is anticipated in FY00, but in advance of that date, the draft is
available to EPA employees at: http://intranet.epa.gov/ oerrinet/review/index.htm.
6-54
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
Highlight 6-37: Example Language - Statutory Determinations Section
Statutory Determinations
Under CERCLA §121 and the NCP, the lead agency must select remedies that are protective of human health
and the environment, comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (unless a statutory
waiver is justified), are cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes a prefer-
ence for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of hazardous wastes as a principal element and a bias against off-site disposal of untreated wastes.
The following sections discuss how the Selected Remedy meets these statutory requirements.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The Selected Remedy, Alternative 4, will protect human health and the environment through the treatment of
TCE- contaminated soil by soil vapor extraction and stabilization of lead-contaminated soil followed by cap-
ping. By pumping and treating contaminated ground water, the Selected Remedy will also prevent the existing
plume from migrating to current ground-water users and remove contamination to Federal drinking water
standards.
Soil vapor extraction, stabilization, and capping the contaminated soil will eliminate the threat of exposure to the
most mobile chemical of potential concern via direct contact with or ingestion of contaminated soil. The
Selected Remedy will also minimize the potential for leachate generation and recontamination of ground
water. The current cancer risks associated with these exposure pathways is 2.6 x 10 2. The Selected Remedy
will reduce the cancer risks from exposure to 1 x 10 6 and the Hazard Index to less than 1.0. This level falls at
the lower end of EPA's target risk range of 10 4 to 10 6. There are no short-term threats associated with the
Selected Remedy that cannot be readily controlled. In addition, no adverse cross-media impacts are expected
from the Selected Remedy.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
The Selected Remedy of ex-situ bioremediation and capping of contaminated soils, and of pumping and
treating the ground water by carbon adsorption comply with all ARARs. The ARARs are presented below and
in more detail in Table	.
Chemical, Location, and Action-Specific ARARs include the following:
•	Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs (40 CFR Part 141), which specify acceptable concentration levels in ground-
water that serves as a potential drinking water aquifer.
•	Clean Water Act FWQC (40 CFR Part 403).
•	RCRA Subtitle D requirements for landfill closure (40 CFR 264.111, Subpart G), which specify a cap with a
permeability less than or equal to the permeability of any bottom liner or natural subsoils present at the site.
•	40 CFR 264.117(a)(1) Subpart G Post-Closure and Monitoring requirements for 30 years.
•	Clean Air Act requirements for emissions from air stripping units.
[Note: Any State ARARs need to be listed here as well.]
Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance To Be Considered (TBCs) for This Remedial Action
In implementing the Selected Remedy, EPA and the State have agreed to consider a number of non-binding
criteria that are TBCs. These include the guidance on designing RCRA caps, Draft RCRA Guidance Docu-
ment, Landfill Design, Liner Systems and Final Cover, issued June 1982. The guidance on designing RCRA
caps includes specifications to be followed in constructing and maintaining a RCRA cap.
6-55
-------
Chapter 6: Writing the Record of Decision
Highlight 6-37: Example Language - Statutory Determinations Section (continued)
Cost-Effectiveness
In the lead agency's judgment, the Selected Remedy is cost-effective and represents a reasonable value
for the money to be spent. In making this determination, the following definition was used: "A remedy shall be
cost-effective if its costs are proportional to its overall effectiveness." (NCP §300.430(f)(1)(ii)(D)). This was
accomplished by evaluating the "overall effectiveness" of those alternatives that satisfied the threshold criteria
(i.e., were both protective of human health and the environment and ARAR-compliant). Overall effectiveness
was evaluated by assessing three of the five balancing criteria in combination (long-term effectiveness and
permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment; and short-term effectiveness).
Overall effectiveness was then compared to costs to determine cost-effectiveness. The relationship of the
overall effectiveness of this remedial alternative was determined to be proportional to its costs and hence this
alternative represents a reasonable value for the money to be spent.
The estimated present worth cost of the Selected Remedy is $10,200,000. Although Alternative 3 is
$2,900,000 less expensive, lead contamination is not addressed, and therefore the remedy is cost-effective.
EPA believes that the Selected Remedy's additional cost for stabilization provides a significant increase in
protection of human health and the environment and is cost-effective. EPA also believes that the Selected
Remedy's combination of soil vapor extraction and capping will provide an overall level of protection compa-
rable to Alternative 5 (incineration and capping) at a significantly lower cost.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies (or Resource Recovery Tech-
nologies) to the Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions
and treatment technologies can be utilized in a practicable manner at the site. Of those alternatives that are
protective of human health and the environment and comply with ARARs, EPA has determined that the Selected
Remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of the five balancing criteria, while also considering
the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element and bias against off-site treatment and disposal
and considering State and community acceptance.
The Selected Remedy treats the source materials constituting principal threats at the site, achieving significant
reductions in TCE concentrations in soil and ground water and stabilizing lead contamination in soil. The
Selected Remedy satisfies the criteria for long-term effectiveness by removing TCE contamination from soil.
Stabilization of lead contaminated soil and capping will effectively reduce the mobility of and potential for direct
contact with contaminants remaining on-site. The Selected Remedy does not present short-term risks
different from the other treatment alternatives. There are no special implementability issues that sets the
Selected Remedy apart from any of the other alternatives evaluated, other than the requirement for a test burn
in the incineration alternative.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
By treating the contaminated soils by soil vapor extraction and stabilization, the Selected Remedy addresses
principal threats posed by the site through the use of treatment technologies. By utilizing treatment as a
significant portion of the remedy, the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal
element is satisfied.
Five-Year Review Requirements
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on-site
above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will be conducted within
five years after initiation of remedial action to ensure that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health
and the environment.
6-56
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
changes (e.g., arguments or new information provided
in public comments).
Highlight 6-38 includes examples of the following
three types of discussions that generally could be in-
cluded in this section of the ROD
•	A case in which no significant changes are made.
•	A case in which a significant change is made
that could have been reasonably anticipated
based on information originally presented in
the Proposed Plan, the RI/FS Report, or else-
where in the Administrative Record file. The
only procedural requirement is to discuss the
change in this section of the ROD.
•	A case in which a significant change is made
that could not have been reasonably anticipated
based on information in the RI/FS Report, the
Proposed Plan, or elsewhere in the Adminis-
trative Record file.
6.4 KEY ELEMENTS OF THE
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The Responsiveness Summary, the third component of
the ROD, summarizes information about the views of
the public and support agency regarding both the re-
medial alternatives and general concerns about the site
submitted during the public comment period. It also
documents in the record how public comments were
integrated into the decision-making process.
To serve these purposes, the Responsiveness Summary
should be a concise and complete summary of signifi-
cant comments received from the public, including
PRPs, during the public comment period required by
CERCLA §117 and NCP §§300.430(f)(3)(i)(F) and
300.430(f) (5) (iii)(B). Superfund Reponsiveness Summaries
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation Number 43E)
(OSWER 9230.0-06, June 1990) provides a framework
for creating responsiveness summaries that can thor-
oughly address the complicated legal and technical is-
sues, and still be responsive to local communities. Based
on this directive, responsiveness summaries should be
organized in two sections:
•	Stakeholder Issues and Lead Agency Re-
sponses: Summarize and respond concisely to
major issues raised by stakeholders (e.g., com-
munity groups, support agencies, businesses,
municipalities, PRPs).
• Technical and Legal Issues: Expand on techni-
cal and legal issues, if necessary.
Whenever possible, the response to a "yes" or "no"
question should begin with a "yes" or "no" before pro-
viding a detailed explanation; or, if this is not possible,
then a statement to that effect should be made at the
beginning of that answer. Responses should be clear,
accurate, and written by the RPM and/or the Commu-
nity Relations Coordinator with review and concur-
rence by the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC). A
Reponsiveness Summary should reflect a genuine attempt
to address citizen's questions and concerns, and not sim-
ply re-assert the correctness of EPA's determination.
At the same time, the summary will be a critical docu-
ment in the defense of the lead agency's actions. For
this reason, the summary should fully and completely
express the lead agency's policy, technical, and legal ra-
tionales. To ensure that commitments made in the Re-
ponsiveness Summary are addressed during implementa-
tion of the Remedial Action and to meet the require-
ments of NCP §300.430(f) (5) (iii)(B), they must also be
addressed in the Description of the Remedial Alternatives
section of the ROD.
When general policy matters are discussed in the
Responsiveness Summary, they should be brought to
management's attention early in the ROD review pro-
cess. If the lead agency determines that a point-by-
point response to a set of comments is warranted, a
separate comment/response document should be pre-
pared. In this situation, a summary of these comments
with the lead agency's response should be included in
the Summary as well.
Guidance on preparing Responsiveness Summaries
is available in Community Relations in Superfund: ^4 Hand-
book (EPA 540-R-92-009 January 1992) and in Commu-
nity Relations During Enforcement Activities and Development
of the Administrative Record (OSWER 9836.0-1A, No-
vember 1988). These documents detail the process of
preparing the Summary and include a sample Respon-
siveness Summary.
6.5 RECORDS OF DECISION TO EPA
HEADQUARTERS
After the ROD is issued, a copy should be sent to
EPA Headquarters as soon as possible. For guidance
on submitting RODs to EPA Headquarters, please see
Appendix D, Records of Decision and Other Decision
Documents to Headquarters.
6-57
-------
Chapter 6: Writing the Record of Decision
Highlight 6-38: Examples of Changes and Documentation Requirements
Example One: No Significant Changes
The Proposed Plan for the EIO Site was released for public comment in March 1999. The Proposed Plan
identified Alternative S2, ex situ bioremediation and capping, as the Preferred Alternative for soil remediation.
EPA reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the public comment period. It was determined
that no significant changes to the remedy, as originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary or
appropriate.
Example Two: Significant Change Requiring Only Documentation in the ROD
The Proposed Plan was released for public comment in March 1999. It identified Alternative G2, pump and
treat through carbon adsorption with discharge to XYZ River, as the Preferred Alternative for ground-water
remediation. Alternative G3 involving discharge to a POTW, was also considered. During the public comment
period, new information indicated that health and environmental levels could not be met by the carbon adsorp-
tion treatment. In addition, it was discovered that the POTW in Nameless does have the capacity to handle the
additional wastewater from the EIO Site. Therefore, EPA and the State decided to select discharge to the POTW
rather than discharge to the XYZ River.
Example Three: Significant Change Requiring a New Public Comment Period
A Proposed Plan for the EIO Site was released for public comment in March 1999. The Plan identified
Alternative S2, ex situ bioremediation and capping, as the Preferred Alternative for remediation. During the
public comment period, the results of remedial activities at another site with contamination problems similar
to those at the EIO Site indicated that an alternative treatment technology, low temperature thermal desorption
(LTTD), could be used successfully on chemical(s) of potential concern similar to those at the EIO Site. Based
on a comparison of the LTTD alternative to the other alternatives using the nine evaluation criteria, it was
determined that LTTD represents the best balance of tradeoffs of all the options. The nine criteria analysis
indicated that while LTTD was comparable to ex-situ bioremediation, fewer short-term risks would be associ-
ated with the low temperature thermal desorption alternative than with the ex-situ bioremediation alternative.
The information supporting this determination is available in the Administrative Record file.
As a result of this new information, EPA decided to propose LTTD as the new Preferred Alternative for soil
remediation at the EIO Site. The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation concurred with this
decision. In compliance with statutory requirements for ensuring the public has the opportunity to comment on
major remedy selection decisions, a new Proposed Plan was prepared presenting low temperature thermal
desorption as the Preferred Alternative. The second Plan was made available to the public in July 1999. No
significant comments were received during the second public comment period, and no significant changes
were made to the proposed remedy.
6-58
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
	
Highlight 6-39: Management Review Checklist:
Twelve Questions to be Addressed by a ROD
1.	Treatment/Containment: Does the ROD identify the source materials constituting principal threats (e.g., liquid waste con-
tained in drums, mobile source materials, highly toxic source materials)? If principal threat wastes are not going to be treated,
does the ROD explicitly state why not? Is the amount of material to be treated or contained estimated for each component of the
Selected Remedy? Does the ROD adequately address the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element?
2.	Remedial Action Objectives: Does the ROD clearly state the objectives of the remedial action?
a.	Examples of remedial action objectives for ground water remedies include the following:
-	To restore the aquifer to drinking water quality in 30 years.
-	To prevent any exposure to the contaminated ground water by implementing institutional controls.
-	To prevent the contaminated plume from reaching an uncontaminated aquifer.
-	To stop the plume migration off-site.
b.	Examples of remedial action objectives for source control remedies include the following:
-	To clean the site up to levels that allow for unrestricted use.
-	To clean the site to levels that allow only for recreational or industrial use.
-	To contain the waste in place and use institutional/engineering controls to prevent any site use other than as a waste
management unit.
-	To remove as much contamination as possible in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the ground-water
remedy.
3.	Land and Ground-water Uses: Does the ROD identify: (1) current land use, (2) reasonably anticipated future land use, (3)
current ground-water use, and (4) potential future ground-water use? Are they the same as those used in estimating the
baseline risks?
4.	Human Health Risks: Does the ROD clearly present the cancer and non-cancer baseline risks for each chemical of concern
(COC) to which there may be exposure and the total aggregate risk based on the reasonably anticipated future land use and/or
potential future ground-water use?
5.	Ecological Risks: Does the ROD include a discussion of whether or not there are ecological risks from site releases? If there
are unacceptable ecological risks, is the basis for this determination clear and does the ROD explain how the remedy will
achieve protection of ecological resources?
6.	Chemicals of Concern: Does the Selected Remedy address all Chemicals of Concern posing unacceptable risk according to
the risk assessment section of the ROD (i.e., explain how the Selected Remedy will achieve protection of human health and the
environment)?
7.	Remedy Selection Rationale: Does the ROD clearly describe why the Selected Remedy is preferred over the other
alternatives (i.e., describe how the Selected Remedy provides the best "balance of tradeoffs" with respect to the balancing and
modifying criteria)?
8.	Cleanup Levels: Are the Chemical of Concern cleanup levels, their basis (i.e., human- or ecological-risk or ARAR), the risk at
each Chemical of Concern cleanup level (if applicable), and the medium addressed, described for each component of the
Selected Remedy?
9.	Institutional Controls: If the Selected Remedy includes institutional controls, does the ROD describe the specific types of
controls and the entity that will be responsible for implementing them and maintaining their effectiveness?
10.	Description of Selected Remedy: Is the Selected Remedy described consistently (e.g., same technology components,
contaminants and medium addressed) in the following three sections of the ROD: (1) Declaration, (2) Description of Alternatives,
and (3) Selected Remedy?
11.	Summary of Remedy Cost Estimate: Are all of the following estimated for the Selected Remedy: (1) capital costs; (2)
annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs; (3) duration of O&M cost estimate; (4) discount rate (%); (5) total discounted
O&M costs (should take into account annual O&M costs, duration, and discount rate); and (6) Total Present Worth cost (sum of
estimated capital costs and discounted O&M costs)?
12.	Remedy Changes: If the ROD, ROD Amendment, or ESD addresses a change in a previously Selected Remedy, does the
decision document give the reasons for the change?
6-59
-------
Chapter 6: Writing the Record of Decision
RECOMMENDED OUTLINE AND CHECKLIST
FOR A RECORD OF DECISION
[See Highlight 6-39 for Management Review Checklist:
Twelve Questions to be Addressed by a ROD]
PART 1: THE DECLARATION
The Declaration functions as the abstract and formal
authorizing signature page for the ROD.
A.	Site Name and Location
B.	Statement of Basis and Purpose
~	Certify the factual and legal basis for the Selected
Remedy [see Highlight 6-2 for standard language],
C.	Assessment of Site
~	Certify that the site poses a threat to public health,
welfare, or the environment [see Highlight 6-3 for
standard language],
D.	Description of Selected Remedy
~	Describe the major components of the Selected
Remedy in a bullet fashion.
~	Describe the scope and role of this operable unit
within the overall site management strategy.
~	Describe how this operable unit addresses princi-
pal threats and other contamination at the site (i.e.,
what is being treated, what is being contained, and
what is the rationale for each).
E.	Statutory Determinations
~	Describe how the Selected Remedy satisfies the
statutory requirements of CERCLA §121 and the
regulatory requirements of the NCR
~	Discuss the applicability of the five-year review
requirements [see Highlight 6-4 for standard
language],
F.	Data Certification Checklist
The Declaration should certify that the following informa-
tion is included in the ROD (or provide a brief explana-
tion for why this information is not included):
~	Chemicals of concern (COCs) and their respective
concentrations.
~	Baseline risk represented by the chemicals of
concern.
~	Cleanup levels established for chemicals of
concern and the basis for these levels.
~	How source materials constituting principal threats
will be addressed.
~	Current and reasonably anticipated future land use
assumptions and current and potential future
beneficial uses of ground water used in the
baseline risk assessment and ROD.
~	Potential land and ground water use that will be
available at the site as a result of the Selected
Remedy.
~	Estimated capital, annual operation and mainte-
nance (O&M), and total present worth costs,
discount rate, and the number of years over which
the remedy cost estimates are projected.
~	Key factor(s) that led to selecting the remedy (i.e.,
describe how the Selected Remedy provides the
best balance of tradeoffs with respect to the balanc-
ing and modifying criteria, highlighting criteria key to
the decision).
G. Authorizing Signatures
[See Highlight 6-6 for notes on ROD authorizing signa-
tures.!
PART 2: THE DECISION SUMMARY
The Decision Summary identifies the Selected Remedy,
explains how the remedy fulfills statutory and regulatory
requirements, and provides a substantive summary of
the Administrative Record file that supports the remedy
selection decision.
A.	Site Name, Location, and Brief Description
~	Name and location.
~	National Superfund database identification number
(e.g., CERCLIS).
~	Lead and support agencies (e.g., EPA, State,
Federal facility).
~	Source of cleanup monies (e.g., Fund-financed,
PRP-financed).
~	Site type (e.g., landfill, industrial facility).
~	Brief site description.
B.	Site History and Enforcement Activities
~	History of site activities that led to the current
problems.
6-60
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
~	History of Federal, State, and local site investiga-
tions and removal and remedial actions conducted
under CERCLA or other authorities.
~	History of CERCLA enforcement activities at the site
{e.g., results of PRP searches, issuances of special
notices to PRPs).
C.	Community Participation
~	Describe how the public participation requirements
in CERCLA and the NCP were met in the remedy
selection process {e.g., community relations plans,
fact sheets, public notices, public meetings, public
comment periods, Technical Assistance Grant,
Community Advisory Group).
~	Describe other community outreach and involve-
ment efforts [see Highlight 6-7 for an example],
~	Describe efforts to solicit views on the reasonably
anticipated future land uses and potential future
beneficial uses of ground water.
D.	Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response
Action
~	The planned sequence of actions.
~	The scope of problems those actions will address.
~	The authorities under which each action will be/has
been implemented {e.g., removal, remedial, State).
[See Highlights 6-8 and 6-9 for tips on writing the Scope
and Role section when there is more than one operable
unit, and for an example.]
E.	Site Characteristics
(Include maps, a site plan, or other graphical presenta-
tions, as appropriate.)
~	Describe the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) on which
the risk assessment and response action are
based [see Highlight 6-10 for an example],
~	Provide an overview of the site, including the
following:
Size of site {e.g., acres).
Geographical and topographical information
{e.g., surface waters, flood plains, wetlands).
Surface and subsurface features {e.g., number
and volume of tanks, lagoons, structures, and
drums on the site).
Areas of archaeological or historical impor-
tance.
~	Describe the sampling strategy {e.g. which media
were investigated, what sampling approach was
used, over what area, when was the sampling
performed).
~	Describe known or suspected sources of contami-
nation.
~	Describe types of contamination and the affected
media, including the following:
Types and characteristics of COCs {e.g., toxic,
mobile, carcinogenic, non-carcinogenic).
Quantity/volume of waste that needs to be
addressed.
Concentrations of COCs in each medium.
RCRA hazardous wastes and affected media.
~	Describe location of contamination and known or
potential routes of migration, including the follow-
ing:
Lateral and vertical extent of contamination.
Current and potential future surface and
subsurface routes of human or environmental
exposure.
Likelihood for migration of COCs from current
location or to other media.
Human and ecological populations that could
be affected.
~	For sites with ground-water contamination, describe
the following:
Aquifer(s) affected or threatened by site con-
tamination, types of geologic materials,
approximate depths, whether aquifer is con-
fined or unconfined.
Ground-water flow directions within each
aquifer and between aquifers and ground-water
discharge locations {e.g., surface waters,
wetlands, other aquifers).
Interconnection between surface contamination
{e.g., soils, sediments/surface water) and
ground-water contamination.
Confirmed or suspected presence and location
of non-aqueous phase liquids.
If ground-water models were used to define the
fate and transport of COCs, identify the model
used and major model assumptions.
~	Note other site-specific factors that may affect
response actions at the site.
6-61
-------
Chapter 6: Writing the Record of Decision
F.	Current and Potential Future Land and Water Uses
Land Uses
~	Current on-site land uses.
~	Current adjacent/surrounding land uses.
~	Reasonably anticipated future land uses and basis
for future use assumptions {e.g., zoning maps,
nearby development, 20-year development plans,
dialogue with local land use planning officials and
citizens, reuse assessment).
Ground-Water and Surface Water Uses
~	Current ground-water and surface water uses.
~	Potential beneficial ground-water and surface water
uses (e.g., potential drinking water, irrigation) and
basis for future use assumptions {e.g., Comprehen-
sive State Ground Water Protection Plan, promul-
gated State classification, EPA ground-water
classification guidelines).
~	If beneficial use is potential drinking water source,
identify the approximate time frame of projected
future drinking water use {e.g., ground-water aquifer
not currently used as a drinking water source but
expected to be utilized in 30 - 50 years).
~	Location of anticipate use in relation to location and
anticipated migration of contamination.
G.	Summary of Site Risks
~	For human health risks:
Identify the concentrations of COCs in each
medium [see Highlight 6-15 for example table
format].
Summarize the results of the exposure assess-
ment.
Summarize the results of the toxicity assess-
ment for the COCs [see Highlights 6-16A and 6-
16B for example table formats].
Summarize the risk characterization for both
current and potential future land use scenarios
and identify major assumptions and sources of
uncertainty [see Highlight 6-17 for example
language and Highlights 6-18A and 6-18B for
example table formats],
~	For ecological risks:
Identify the concentrations of COCs in each
medium [see Highlight 6-19 for an example
table format].
Summarize the results of the exposure assess-
ment [see Highlight 6-20 for an example table
format].
Summarize the results of the ecological effects
assessment.
Summarize the results of the ecological risk
characterization and identify major assump-
tions and sources of uncertainty [see Highlight
6-21 for an example table format],
~	Clearly present the basis for taking the response
action at the conclusion of this section [see stan-
dard language in Highlight 6-12],
H.	Remedial Action Objectives
~	Present a clear statement of the specific RAOs for
the operable unit or site {e.g., treatment of contami-
nated soils above health-based action levels,
restoration of ground-water plume to drinking water
levels, and containment of DNAPL source areas)
and reference a list or table of the individual perfor-
mance standards.
~	Discuss the basis and rationale for RAOs {e.g.,
current and reasonably anticipated future land use
and potential beneficial ground-water use).
~	Explain how the RAOs address risks identified in
the risk assessment {e.g., how will the risks driving
the need for action be addressed by the response
action?).
I.	Description of Alternatives
The objective of this section is to provide a brief under-
standing of the remedial alternatives developed for the
site.
Remedy Components
Provide a bulleted list of the major components of each
alternative, including but not limited to:
~	Treatment technologies and materials they will be
used to address {e.g., principal threats).
~	Containment components of remedy {e.g., engi-
neering controls, cap, hydraulic barriers) and
materials they will be used to address {e.g., low
concentration source materials, treatment residu-
als).
~	Institutional controls (and entity responsible for
implementing and maintaining them).
~	Operations and Maintenance (O&M) activities
required to maintain the integrity of the remedy {e.g.,
cap maintenance).
~	Monitoring requirements.
[See Highlight 6-22 for examples of remedy compo-
nents.!
6-62
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of
Each Alternative
Describe common elements and distinguishing
features unique to each response option. Examples of
these elements include:
~	Key ARARs (or ARAR waivers) associated with each
alternative {e.g., action- and/or location-specific
ARARs, including the control of air, emissions from
ground-water treatment units, manifesting of
hazardous waste, and regulating solid waste
landfills).
~	Long-term reliability of remedy (potential for remedy
failure/replacement costs).
~	Quantity of untreated waste and treatment residuals
to be disposed off-site or managed on-site in a
containment system and degree of residual
contamination remaining in such waste.
~	Estimated time required for design and construction
(i.e., implementation time frame).
~	Estimated time to reach cleanup levels (i.e., time of
operation, period of performance).
~	Estimated capital, annual O&M, and total present
worth costs, discount rate, and the number of years
over which the remedy cost estimate is projected.
~	Describe uses of presumptive remedies and/or
innovative technologies.
Expected Outcomes of Each Alternative
~	Available land uses upon achieving performance
standards. Note time frame to achieve performance
standards (e.g., commercial or light industrial use
available in three years when cleanup levels are
achieved).
~	Available ground water uses upon achieving
performance standards . Note time frame to
achieve performance standards (e.g., restricted
use for industrial purposes in Tl waiver zone,
drinking water use in non-TI zone upon achieving
cleanup levels in 50-70 years).
~	Other impacts or benefits associated with each
alternative.
J. Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
~	Compare the relative performance of each alterna-
tive against the others with respect to the nine
evaluation criteria (summarize in a table if appropri-
ate).
[See Highlight 6-23 for tips on presenting the compara-
tive analysis of alternatives, Highlight 6-24 for example
text, and Highlight 6-25 for an example table format.]
K. Principal Threat Wastes
~	Identify the source materials constituting principal
threats at the site and discuss how the alternatives
will address them.
Note: The Statutory Determinations section of the ROD
should explain whether or not the Selected Remedy
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies employ-
ing treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as
a principal element. By indicating whether the principal
threats will be addressed by the alternatives, this section
of the Decision Summary should provide the basis for
that statutory determination.
[See Highlight 6-26 for key definitions.]
L. Selected Remedy
Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy
~	Provide a concise discussion of the key factors for
remedy selection.
Detailed Description of the Selected Remedy
~	Expand on the description of the Selected Remedy
from that which was provided in the Description of
Alternatives section and provide a brief overview of
the RAO's and performance standards.
[See Highlight 6-27 for tips on writing the "Selected
Remedy" section]
Cost Estimate for the Selected Remedy
~	Present a detailed, activity-based breakdown of the
estimated costs associated with implementing and
maintaining the remedy (include estimated capital,
annual O&M, and total present worth costs discount
rate and the number of years over which the remedy
cost estimate is projected).
[See Highlight 6-28 for standard language, Highlight 6-
29 for an example table format, and Highlight 6-30 for
tips on presenting the cost estimate summary.]
Estimated Outcomes of Selected Remedy
~	Available land use(s) upon achieving cleanup
levels. Note time frame to achieve available use
(e.g., commercial or light industrial use available in
3 years when cleanup levels are achieved).
~	Available ground-water use(s) upon achieving
cleanup levels. Note time frame to achieve avail-
able use (e.g., restricted use for industrial pur-
poses in Tl waiver zone, drinking water use in non-
TI zone upon achieving cleanup levels in 50-70
years).
~	Final cleanup levels for each medium (i.e., contami-
nant specific cleanup levels), basis for cleanup
levels, and risk at cleanup levels (if appropriate)
6-63
-------
Chapter 6: Writing the Record of Decision
[see Highlight 6-32 for an example table format],
~	Anticipated socio-economic and community
revitalization impacts {e.g., increased property
values, reduced water supply costs, jobs created,
increased tax revenues due to redevelopment,
environmental justice concerns addressed, en-
hanced human uses of ecological resources).
~	Anticipated environmental and ecological benefits
{e.g., restoration of sensitive ecosystems, protection
of endangered species, protection of wildlife
populations, wetlands restoration).
[See Highlight 6-31 for examples of expected outcomes.]
M. Statutory Determinations
~	Explain how the remedy satisfies the requirements
of §121 of CERCLA to:
Protect human health and the environment.
Comply with ARARs, or justify a waiver [see
Highlight 6-34 for an example table format].
Be cost-effective [see Highlight 6-35 for an
example matrix].
[See Highlight 6-38 for examples of changes and
documentation requirements.]
PART 3: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The Responsiveness Summary serves the dual pur-
poses of: (1) presenting stakeholder concerns about the
site and preferences regarding the remedial alterna-
tives; and (2) explaining how those concerns were
addressed and the preferences were factored into the
remedy selection process. This discussion should
cross-reference sections of the Decision Summary that
demonstrate how issues raised by the community have
been addressed.
A Stakeholder Issues and Lead Agency Responses
~	Summarize and respond concisely to issues raised
by stakeholders.
B. Technical and Legal Issues
~	Expand on technical and legal issues, if necessary.
Utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable
{i.e., explain why the Selected Remedy repre-
sents the best option).
Satisfy the preference for treatment as a
principal element, or justify not meeting this
preference [see Highlight 6-33 for an illustration
of the relationship between statutory determina-
tions and the nine criteria],
~	Explain five-year review requirements for the
Selected Remedy [see Highlight 6-36 for informa-
tion regarding five-year reviews],
[See Highlight 6-37 for example language for the
statutory determinations section.]
N. Documentation of Significant Changes from
Preferred Alternative of Proposed Plan
If there are significant changes in the Selected Remedy
from the Preferred Alternative:
~	Discuss the Preferred Alternative originally pre-
sented in the Proposed Plan.
~	Describe the significant changes in the Selected
Remedy.
~	Explain the rationale for the changes and how they
could have been reasonably anticipated based on
information presented in the Proposed Plan or the
Administrative Record file.
6-64
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
7.0 DOCUMENTING POST-ROD CHANGES: MINOR CHANGES,
EXPLANATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES, AND ROD
AMENDMENTS1
7.1 EVALUATING POST-RECORD OF
DECISION INFORMATION
After a ROD is signed, new information may be
received or generated that could affect the implemen-
tation of the remedy selected in the ROD, or could
prompt the reassessment of that remedy.1 The infor-
mation could be identified at any time during, immedi-
ately prior to, or after the implementation of the rem-
edy. Where information is submitted by a PRP, the
public, or the support agency after a ROD is signed,
the lead agency must consider and respond to this in-
formation and place such comments and responses in
the Administrative Record file when all of the follow-
ing criteria are met (per NCP §300.825(c)):
•	Comments contain significant information;
•	The new information is not contained else-
where in the Administrative Record file;
•	The new information could not have been sub-
mitted during the public comment period; and
•	The new information substantially supports the
need to significantly alter the response action.
The lead agency also may evaluate whether a rem-
edy change is warranted on its own merits, even where
the requirements of NCP §300.825(c) are not triggered.2
1	It is I '.P A's policy to encourage appropriate remedy changes in
response to advances in remediation science and technology
(Superfund Reforms: Updating Remedy Decisions, (EPA 540-F-96-026,
September 1996).
2	Responding to post-ROD comments submitted by PRPs, the
public, or the support agency may only require a general overview
of the comments and a simple EPA response if no change to the
remedy is involved or the change is minor (see Answers to Comments
Submitted After the Superfund ROD Is Signed\ EPA memorandum,
October 11, 1995, http://es.epa.gov/oeca/osre/951011. html).
However, a formal public comment period may be conducted de-
pending upon whether the change is significant or fundamental (for
definitions of these types of changes see Section 7.2).
7.2 TYPES OF POST-RECORD OF
DECISION CHANGES
The lead agency's categorization of a post-ROD
change to the Selected Remedy is a site-specific deter-
mination and must consider the following as set out in
NCP §300.435(c)(2).
•	Scope. Does the change alter the scope of the
remedy (e.g., type of treatment or containment
technology, the physical area of the response,
remediation goals to be achieved, type and
volume of wastes to be addressed)?
•	Performance. Would the change alter the perfor-
mance (e.g., treatment levels to be attained, long-
term reliability of the remedy)?
•	Cost. Are there significant changes in costs from
estimates in the ROD, taking into account the
recognized uncertainties associated with the
hazardous waste engineering process selected?
(Feasibility Study cost estimates are expected
to provide an accuracy of +50 percent to -30
percent.)
Based on this evaluation, and depending on the
extent or scope of modification being considered, the
lead agency must make a determination as to the type
of change involved (i.e., nonsignificant or minor, sig-
nificant, or fundamental change). Remedy changes
should fall along a continuum from minor to funda-
mental. Similarly, an aggregate of nonsignificant or sig-
nificant changes could result in a fundamental change.
Post-ROD changes fit into one of the three fol-
lowing categories:
•	Nonsignificant or Minor Changes usually arise dur-
ing design and construction, when modifica-
tions are made to the functional specifications
of the remedy to address issues such as per-
formance optimization, new technical informa-
7-1
-------
Chapter 7: Documenting Post-ROD Changes
tion, support agency/community concerns
and/or cost minimization (e.g., value engineer-
ing process). Such changes may affect things
such as the type or cost of materials, equip-
ment, facilities, services, and supplies used to
implement the remedy. The change will not
have a significant impact on the scope, perfor-
mance or cost of the remedy.
•	Significant Changes generally involve a change to
a component of a remedy that does not fun-
damentally alter the overall cleanup approach.
•	fundamental Changes involve an appreciable
change or changes in the scope, performance,
and/or cost or may be a number of signifi-
cant changes that together have the effect of a
fundamentalchange. An example of a funda-
mental change is one that results in a reconsid-
eration of the overall waste management ap-
proach selected in the original ROD.
Highlight 7-1 provides examples of post-ROD
changes. (See also NCP preamble, 55 FR 8772 for
more information.) Please note that the examples pre-
sented in Highlight 7-1 are not meant to present strict
thresholds for changes in cost, volume, or time.
7.3 DOCUMENTING POST-RECORD
OF DECISION CHANGES
The type of documentation required for a post-
ROD change depends on the nature of the change.
Changes that significantly or fundamentally affect the
remedy selected in the ROD will require more explana-
tion and/or opportunity for public comment than those
that do not. Each type of post-ROD change is associ-
ated with one of three documentation procedures: (1)
a memo or note to the post-ROD file for an insignifi-
cant or minor change; (2) an explanation of significant
differences (ESD) for a significant change, and (3) a
ROD amendment for a fundamental change. Sample
outlines for ESDs and ROD Amendments are pro-
vided in Highlight 7-2.
7.3.1 Documenting Non-Significant (or
Minor) Post-ROD Changes: Memo to
the Site File
Any non-significant or minor changes should be
recorded in the post-ROD site file (e.g., the RD/RA
case file). If the lead agency chooses, non-significant
changes can also be documented for the public in a
Remedial Design Fact Sheet. Although not legally re-
quired, a written statement describing the change is gen-
erally recommended (See "Answers to Comments Submit-
ted After the Superfund ROD is Signed" EPA memoran-
dum, October 11, 1995, http://es.epa.gov/oeca/osre/
951011. html).
7.3.2 Documenting Significant Post-ROD
Changes: Explanation of Significant
Differences
When documenting significant changes made to a
remedy, the lead agency must comply with CERCLA
§117(c) and NCP §§300.435(c)(2)(i) and 300.825(a)(2).
An ESD must describe to the public the nature of the
significant changes, summarize the information that led
to making the changes, and affirm that the revised rem-
edy complies with the NCP and the statutory require-
ments of CERCLA.
To describe the nature of the significant changes, it
is suggested that a side-by-side comparison of the origi-
nal and proposed remedy components be used to clearly
display the significant differences.
The ESD should provide additional information
on changes that have resulted in the remedy as a result
of the change (e.g., changes in the cleanup cost estimate
or remediation time frame). Generally, a new nine-cri-
teria analysis is not required; however, the ESD should
include a statement that the ROD remains protective
and continues to meet ARARs (NCP
§§300.430(f)(1)(ii)(B)(1) and (2)).3 It is also generally
appropriate to prepare an ESD document when the
lead agency decides to exercise a contingency remedy
that was previously described in the ROD (see Section
8.3).
While the ESD is being prepared and made avail-
able to the public, the lead agency may proceed with
the pre-design, design, construction, or operation ac-
tivities associated with the remedy. The lead agency
3 Ail ESD does not generally reopen consideration of ARARs
for the remedy since an ESD does not fundamentally change the
remedy However, if an ESD results in the addition of any new
components to the remedy, any ARARs that apply to the change
that the ESD describes must be discussed and met or waived.
For example, if any ARARs apply to an ESD change which adds
stabilization of residuals to a thermal treatment remedy, they
must be discussed in the ESD and met or waived.
7-2
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
Highlight 7-1: Examples of Post-Record of Decision Changes
(NOTE: Examples are not meant to present strict thresholds for changes in cost, volume, or time.)
Minor Changes
Small Increase in Volume: Remedial design testing shows that the volume of soil requiring treatment is
75,000 cubic yards rather than the 60,000 estimated in the ROD, but the estimated cost of the overall remedy
will only increase by a small percentage.
Disposal Location: During remedial design, it is discovered that it is not feasible to construct the on-site
landfill (which is part of the Selected Remedy) in the location specified in the ROD. However, another similar
location at the site is suitable for a landfill, and this location is chosen.
Ground-Water Monitoring: The Selected Remedy calls for long-term pump and treat of contaminated ground
water with monitoring on a quarterly basis. After a period of time, a determination is made that no significant
change in data quality or monitoring effectiveness will occur if monitoring contaminant levels in the ground
water is less frequent. Ground-water monitoring is changed to semi-annual sampling.
Significant Changes
Large Increase in Volume/ Cost Increase: Sampling during the remedial design phase indicates the need
to significantly increase the volume of contaminated waste material to be incinerated in order to meet se-
lected cleanup levels, thereby substantially increasing the estimated cost of the remedy.
Disposal Location: The lead agency determines that it is not feasible to construct an on-site landfill for
treated waste in accordance with the remedy selected in the ROD. The treated wastes must be sent to an off-
site landfill. Although the overall management approach for the treated waste (landfill disposal) will remain
the same, the costs and implementation time will increase significantly.
Contingency Remedy: As part of an active ground-water pump and treat system, contaminant concentrations
decrease to an asymptotic level which is close to attainment of the cleanup level. Investigation shows that
adding additional wells to pump and treat ground water will not improve the performance of the remedy in
attaining the cleanup level. The ROD included contingency language that the pump and treat remedy would
continue operating until contaminant levels were reduced by at least 90%. At such time, monitored natural
attenuation would be relied upon to attain the cleanup levels specified in the ROD (if performance monitoring
data indicated that this would be an effective method of achieving the final cleanup levels). A decision is
made to implement the contingency, thus changing the remedy from pump and treat to monitored natural
attenuation. This represents a significant change in achieving the cleanup levels at the site.
New ARAR Promulgated (Impacts on Cleanup Levels and Other Parameters): The lead agency deter-
mines that the attainment of a newly promulgated requirement is necessary, based on new scientific evi-
dence, because the existing ARAR is no longer protective. Although this new requirement will significantly
change the remedy (i.e., cleanup level, timing, volume, or cost), it will not fundamentally alter the remedy
specified in the ROD (i.e., the selected technology will not change) and it will not impact the level of protection
(i.e., risk reduction) that the remedy will provide.
Land Use: During remedial design, the local zoning board decides to change the current land use from
residential to commercial. Although this new requirement will significantly change features of the remedy
(i.e., determination of principal or low level threats, reasonable risk scenarios, appropriate cleanup levels), it
will not fundamentally alter the remedy specified in the ROD (e.g., the selected technology will not change).
Secondary Technology: The lead agency decides to use a biological treatment method instead of air
stripping (which was specified in the ROD) for ex-situ treatment of extracted ground water. The basic pump
and treat approach remains unaltered and the cleanup level specified in the ROD will be met by the alternate
technology; the change is significant, but not fundamental. [See Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ
Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Ground Water at CERCLA Sites (EPA 540-R-96-023, October
1996).]
7-3
-------
Chapter 7: Documenting Post-ROD Changes
Highlight 7-1: Examples of Post-Record of Decision Changes (continued)
Institutional Controls: During a five-year review, the lead agency reviews institutional control measures
implemented at the site and determines that additional measures, that differ significantly from what was
described in the ROD, are necessary to be protective {e.g., need for an easement to replace a deed notice).
Change in ARARs: At a five-year review, it is determined that a cleanup level is not consistent with an updated
State cleanup standard, and thus is not protective and needs to be modified. This change will not cause a
fundamental change in the volume of waste to be remediated.
Fundamental Changes
Change Primary Treatment Method: The in-situ soil washing remedy selected in the ROD proves to be
infeasible to implement after testing during remedial design. A decision is made to fundamentally change
the remedy to excavate and thermally treat the waste.
Change Primary Treatment Method with Cost Increase: Additional information obtained during remedial
design testing demonstrates that the Selected Remedy for ground water, monitored natural attenuation, will
not meet cleanup levels, as had been originally predicted in the RI/FS. The lead agency decides to funda-
mentally change the remedy from monitored natural attenuation to pump and treat. The estimated cost of the
cleanup increases significantly.
Change Primary Treatment Method with Cost Decrease: Pump and treat is the Selected Remedy for ground
water. Prior to construction of a pump and treat system, interested parties collect and present ground-water
information to the lead agency showing that contaminant concentrations are decreasing due to natural
processes {e.g., biodegradation, dilution, adsorption, dispersion). Modeling indicates that monitored natural
attenuation will achieve cleanup levels in a time frame comparable to pump and treat at substantially less
cost.
Change from Containment to Treatment with Cost Increase: At a five-year review for a small industrial site,
tests indicate that the containment remedy will not be protective and now a more active response approach
{e.g., treatment) is necessary. A new remedy must be selected that will meet protectiveness requirements,
resulting in unanticipated costs for the site.
Technical Impracticability Waiver: While implementing an active pump and treat remedy, the presence of
DNAPL is discovered. A determination is made to invoke a Technical Impracticability Waiver of the ARAR
because treatment of the DNAPL zone is impracticable from an engineering perspective. Rather than treat
the source material (DNAPL) a decision is made to implement a containment approach {e.g., slurry wall) for
the DNAPL zone. Pump and treat will continue outside the containment zone. As a result, the scope,
performance, and cost of the original remedy is fundamentally changed.
Community Preference: The original remedy selected in the ROD was on-site incineration of contaminated
soils with estimated costs of $50 million. The community opposes the building of an incinerator and re-
quests that an alternate remedy be selected. New information received after the ROD was signed demon-
strates that thermal desorption can meet the cleanup goals in a reasonable time frame for less cost with no
loss in protection. This change is based on the community's preference for an alternative to the original
Selected Remedy.
Volume Decrease Changes Primary Treatment Method: The Selected Remedy called for treatment by lead
recovery and recycling of lead contaminated materials. Additional investigation in design showed the volume
of waste to be smaller than originally presumed. The decrease in volume made recycling uneconomical.
The amended remedy calls for treatment and containment such that waste is stabilized and consolidated in
a lined and capped on-site containment facility. The scope of the new remedy is more efficient, is cost-
effective, and is supported by the State and the community.
7-4
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
should consult with the support agency, as appropriate,
before issuingan ESD (NCP §300.435(c)(2)). Although
not specifically required by CERCLA §121 (f) and NCP
§300.435(c)(2) (i), it is also recommended that the lead
agency provide the support agency the opportunity to
comment, and summarize the support agency's com-
ments in the ESD. The lead agency also must publish a
notice of availability and a brief description of the ESD
in a major local newspaper of general circulation (as
required by NCP §300.435(c) (2) (i)(B)). The ESD must
be made available to the public by placing it in the Ad-
ministrative Record file and information repository
(NCP §§300.435(c) (2)(i)(A) and 300.825(a)(2)). A for-
mal public comment periodis not required when issuing
an ESD.
In some cases, an additional public comment pe-
riod or public meeting may be held voluntarily on a
planned ESD (NCP §300.825(b)). This may be useful
where there is considerable public or PRP interest in the
matter. The Office of Emergency and Remedial Re-
sponse (OERR) recommends issuing the ESD in a fact
sheet format as outlined in Highlight 7-2. The Regional
Administrator (or their designee) must sign an ESD. In
such cases it may be appropriate to delay implementa-
tion of the remedy relating to the ESD to allow a con-
sideration of possible concerns.
7.3.3 Documenting Fundamental Post-
ROD Changes: ROD Amendment
When a fundamental change is made to the basic
features of the remedy selected in a ROD with respect
to scope, performance, or cost, the lead agency is re-
quired to develop and document the change consistent
with the ROD process (NCP §§300.435(c)(2)(ii)(A)
through (H)). This entails the issuance of a revised Pro-
posed Plan that highlights the proposed changes. An
amended ROD that documents the change follows the
Proposed Plan. The portion of the ROD being
amended is evaluated using the nine criteria, focusing
on those central to the rationale for the Selected Rem-
edy.
In general, the introductory sections of the ROD
do not need to be readdressed in the ROD Amend-
ment but may be referenced from the previous ROD.
The focus of the amendment should be to document
the rationale for the amendment and provide assurances
that the proposed remedy satisfies the statutory require-
ments. This is accomplished through an evaluation, uti-
lizing the nine criteria, of the portion of the remedy
being changed.
To describe the nature of the changes, it is sug-
gested that a side-by-side comparison of the original
and proposed remedy components be used to clearly
display the differences.
The information included in a ROD Amendment
is a function of the type of change made and the ratio-
nale for that change. If the amended ROD addresses
the entire response action for the site or a series of op-
erable units (e.g., soil, surface water, ground water), only
the portion of the remedy that is being changed
(e.g.,ground water) requires an amendment. For the
portion of the ROD being amended, a new nine-crite-
ria analysis, including a new ARARs analysis, will be nec-
essary (see NCP §300.430(f)(l)(ii) (B)(2)). Portions of the
analysis in the original ROD can be cross-referenced,
where appropriate. RD/RA activities being conducted
on other portions of the site or at operable units not
proposed for changes may continue during the amend-
ment process.
When fundamental changes are proposed to the
ROD, the lead agency must conduct the public partici-
pation and documentation procedures specified in NCP
§§300.435(c)(2)(ii) and 300.825(a)(2). This would in-
clude issuing a revised Proposed Plan that highlights the
proposed changes. The format should follow that of
the Proposed Plan described in Chapter 3. The final
decision to amend is not made until after consideration
of public comment (NCP §300.435(c)(2)(ii)).
If a fundamental change is made after a consent
decree has been entered at an enforcement-lead site, the
decree may need to be modified to conform to the
amended ROD, and perhaps involve the Department
of Justice or the Court. RPMs should check with their
Regional Counsel on how this may be accomplished.
ROD Amendments, like RODs, must be signed
by the Regional Administrator (or their designee). A
recommended outline and checklist can be found in
Highlight 7-2.
7-5
-------
Chapter 7: Documenting Post-ROD Changes
7.4 HEADQUARTERS REVIEW AND
FILING OF DECISION CHANGES
Draft ESDs and ROD Amendments (including
revised Proposed Plans) should be submitted to EPA
Headquarters for review and comment pursuant to Focus
Areas for Headquarters OERR Supportfor Regional Decision
Making (OSWER 9200.1-17,May 22,1996). In the event
that the remedy change meets the criteria for review by
the National Remedy Review Board, the appropriate
consultation procedures should be followed. For more
information on the National Remedy Review Board,
see http://www.epa. gov/superfund/programs/nrrb/
index.htm. See also Appendix C, Consolidated Guide to
ConsultationProceduresforSuperfund Response Decisions (EPA
540-F-97-009, May 1997).
A copy of a signed final ESD or ROD Amend-
ment should be submitted within 30 days of signature
to the following Headquarters office:
ROD Clearinghouse
Superfund Document Center
U.S. EPA Mail Code 5202G
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Please refer to Appendix D for guidance on sub-
mitting decision documents to EPA Headquarters.
7-6
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
Highlight 7-2: Sample Outline and Checklist for ESDs and ROD Amendments
Component
Explanation of Significant Differences
ROD Amendment
Introduction to the
Site and Statement
of Purpose
•	Site name and location.
•	Identification of lead and support agencies.
•	Citation of CERCLA §117(c) and NCP
§300.435(c)(2)(l).
•	Include date of ROD signature.
•	Summary of circumstances that led to the
need for an ESD.
•	Statement that ESD will become part of
Administrative Record file (NCP
300.825(a)(2)).
•	Address of location where the file is
available and hours of availability.
•	Site name and location.
•	Identification of lead and support agencies
•	Citation of CERCLA §117 and NCP
§300.435(c)(2)(H).
•	Include date of original ROD signature.
•	Summary of circumstances that led to the
need for a ROD Amendment.
•	Statement that ROD Amendment will become
part of Administrative Record file (NCP
300.825(a)(2)).
•	Address of location where the file is
available and hours of availability.
Site History,
Contamination, and
Selected Remedy
•	Brief summary of contamination problems
and site history.
•	Present the Selected Remedy, as originally
described in the ROD.
•	Brief summary of contamination problems
and site history.
•	Present the Selected Remedy, as originally
described in the ROD.
Basis for the
Document
•	Summarize information that prompted and
supports significant differences from the
Selected Remedy, including the results of
the treatability studies or other information
developed or provided during the remedial
design process.
•	Reference any information in the Administra-
tive Record file that supports the need for
the change.
•	Summarize the information that prompted and
supports fundamentally changing the remedy
selected in the ROD, including the results of
treatability studies or other information
developed or provided during the remedial
design process that supports the amend-
ment.
•	Reference any information in the Administra-
tive Record file that supports the need for
the amendment.
Description of
Significant
Differences or New
Alternatives
•	Describe the significant differences
between the remedy as presented in the
ROD and the action now proposed,
highlighting scope, performance, and cost.
•	Describe any changes in Expected
Outcomes that will result from the ESD (e.g.,
change in time to achieve cleanup objec-
tives).
•	Describe original Selected Remedy and new
proposed remedy in the same manner as in a
standard ROD, highlighting the following:
Treatment components.
Containment or storage components.
Institutional Control components.
Key ARARs.
•	Explain how the change will affect the
Remedial Action Objectives for the site.
•	Describe any changes in Expected Out-
comes that will result from the ROD
Amendment (e.g., change in land use,
change in cleanup levels).
Evaluation of
Alternatives
Not Applicable to ESDs.
• Use the nine criteria to compare the original
and the new proposed remedies.
Support Agency
Comments
• Include a summary of support agency
comments on the ESD.
• Include a summary of support agency
comments on the ROD Amendment.
Statutory
Determinations
• State that the modified remedy satisfies
CERCLA §121.
• State that the modified remedy satisfies
CERCLA §121.
Public Participation
Compliance
• Document that the public participation
requirements set out in NCP
§300.435(c)(2)(i) have been met.
• Document that the public participation
requirements set out in NCP
§300.435(c)(2)(H) have been met.
7-7
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
8.0 DOCUMENTING NO ACTION, INTERIM ACTION, AND
CONTINGENCY REMEDY DECISIONS
This chapter discusses the essential components of
RODs that are prepared to document three specific
types of remedial action decisions: no action, interim
action, and contingency remedies. In preparing one of
these three types of RODs, RPMs should modify the
recommended format of the "standard ROD" for fi-
nal response actions (see Highlight 8-1 and the checklist
at the end of Chapter 6) as indicated in this chapter. In
the examples provided here, for each type of ROD,
sections of the standard ROD that should be elimi-
nated have been crossed out (e.g., Statutory Determina-
tions), and remaining sections should be modified ac-
cording to the directions provided. All other sections
should be prepared as in a standard ROD (see Chapter
6 for complete descriptions).
8.1 DOCUMENTING NO ACTION
DECISIONS
The lead agency may determine that no action (i.e.,
no treatment, engineering controls, or institutional con-
trols1) is warranted under the following general sets of
circumstances:
•	When the site or a specific problem or area of
the site (i.e., an operable unit) poses no current
or potential threat to human health or the envi-
ronment;
•	When CERCLA does not provide the author-
ity to take remedial action; or
•	When a previous response (s) has eliminated the
need for further remedial response.
Examples of potential situations where no action
decisions may be appropriate are provided in Highlight
8-2. Highlights 8-4, 8-5, and 8-6 outline ROD formats
for situations where a no action ROD may be war-
ranted.
	
Highlight 8-1: Recommended
Outline for Standard Recordof
Decision*
PART 1: DECLARATION
•	Site Name and Location
•	Statement of Basis and Purpose
•	Assessment of Site
•	Description of Selected Remedy
•	Statutory Determinations
•	ROD Data Certification Checklist
•	Authorizing Signatures
PART 2: DECISION SUMMARY
•	Site Name, Location, and Brief Description
•	Site History and Enforcement Activities
•	Community Participation
•	Scope and Role of Operable Unit or
Response Action
•	Site Characteristics
•	Current and Potential Future Site and
Resource Uses
•	Summary of Site Risks
•	Remedial Action Objectives
•	Description of Alternatives
•	Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
•	Principal Threat Waste
•	Selected Remedy
•	Statutory Determinations
•	Documentation of Significant Changes
PART 3: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
•	Stakeholder Comments and Lead Agency
Responses
•	Technical and Legal Issues
•	See Chapter 6 for an expanded outline/
checklist.
1 An alternative may include monitoring only and still be con-
sidered "no action." However, monitored natural attenuation is
not a "no action" decision. See Appendix B for a detailed discussion
of this distinction and for monitored natural attention documenta-
tion recommendations.
8-1
-------
Chapter 8: Documenting No Action, Interim Action, and Contingency Remedy Decisions
	
Highlight 8-2: Examples of
Situations Where No Action
Decisions May Be Appropriate
Example 1:
•	Where the baseline risk assessment con-
cludes that current or potential future site con-
ditions pose no unacceptable risks to hu-
man health or to the environment (section
8.1.1).
Example 2:
•	Where a release involves only a pure petro-
leum product that is exempt from the defini-
tions of hazardous substances, pollutants,
and contaminants under CERCLA §101
(section 8.1.2).
Example 3:
•	Where a previous removal or remedial ac-
tion eliminates existing and potential risks to
human health and the environment so that
no further action is necessary (section 8.1.3).
8.2 DOCUMENTING INTERIM ACTION
DECISIONS
During scoping, or at other points in the RI/FS,
the lead agency may determine that an interim remedial
action is appropriate.2 An interim action is limited in
scope and only addresses areas/media that also will be
addressed by a final site/operable unit ROD. Reasons
for taking an interim action could include the need to:
•	Take quick action to protect human health and
the environment from an imminent threat in
the short term, while a final remedial solution
is being developed; or
•	Institute temporary measures to stabilize the site
or operable unit and/or prevent further mi-
gration of contaminants or further environmen-
tal degradation.
Interim actions either are implemented for sepa-
rate operable units or may be a component of a final
ROD for other portions of the site. In either case, an
2 A removal action also may be appropriate to address imme-
diate risks at an NPL site. See Interim Guidance on Addressing Imme-
diate Threats at NPL Sites (OSWER 9200.2-03, January 1990).
interim action must be followed by a final ROD, which
must satisfy all of the following:
•	Provide long-term protection of human health
and the environment;
•	Comply with ARARs;
•	Fully address the principal threats posed by the
site or operable unit; and
•	Address the statutory preference for treatment
that reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume
of wastes.
The basic format presented in this section will be
the same for all interim actions. However, the detailed
information required within each section of the ROD
may vary, depending on whether the action addresses
ground water or source materials.
8.2.1 Interim A ctions Vers us Early A ctions
Interim remedial actions should not be confused
with "early remedial actions." "Early" in this case is
simply a description of when the action is taken in the
Superfund process.3 Thus, an early action is one that is
taken before the RI/FS for the site or operable unit has
been completed. Hence, early actions may be either
interim or final. An example of an early interim action
would be to provide a temporary alternative water sup-
ply and seal wells that are pumping from a contami-
nated aquifer, whereas an early final action might in-
volve the complete removal of drums and a limited
amount of surrounding contaminated soil that, with-
out early attention, could result in contamination to cur-
rently uncontaminated areas. More detailed examples
of early interim and early final actions are described in
Highlight 8-3.
When an interim action is taken early in the process
to mitigate immediate threats, it is likely that no formal
RI/FS Report will be available yet. Although prepara-
tion of an RI/FS Report is not required for an interim
action, there must be documentation that supports the
rationale for the action to fulfill the NCP's Administra-
tive Record requirements. The ROD serves this pur-
3 For more EPA guidance on early actions, see Early Action and
Long-Term Action Under the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM) (OSWER 9203.1-051, Vol. 1, No. 2, September 1992).
8-2
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
	
Highlight 8-3: Examples of
Possible Interim and Early Actions
Interim Actions
•	Installing and operating extraction wells in
an aquifer to restrict migration of a contami-
nated ground-water plume with the intention
of later installing additional wells (or taking
other action) to address the contamination
in a final action.
•	Providing a temporary alternate source of
drinking water with the intention of later, in a
subsequent action, remediating the source
of contamination and/or the aquifer.
•	Constructing a temporary cap to control or
reduce exposures until subsequent action
is taken.
•	Relocating contaminated material from one
area of a site {e.g., residential yards) to an-
other area of the site for temporary storage
until a decision on how best to manage site
wastes is made.
Early Actions
•	Early interim action. Any of the interim ac-
tions discussed above, if taken before the
completion of the RI/FS for site or OU, would
constitute an early action.
•	Early final action. Before the RI/FS is com-
pleted, drums are removed from the site
along with surrounding contaminated soil
that, without early attention, could result in
contamination of currently uncontaminated
areas. [This action, although taken early, is
final because the removed drums and soil
were taken off-site for final disposal.]
pose. A summary of site data collected during field
investigations should be sufficient to document a prob-
lem in need of response. In addition, a short analysis
of remedial alternatives considered, those rejected, and
the basis for the evaluation (as is done in a focused FS)
should be summarized to support the selected action.
8.2.2 Interim A ction Record of Decision
Format4
The interim action ROD should be tailored to the
limited scope and purpose of the interim action. The
format for an interim action ROD is outlined in High-
light 8-7.
8.3 DOCUMENTING CONTINGENCY
REMEDY DECISIONS
The lead agency, in consultation with the support
agency, may decide to incorporate a contingency rem-
edy in the ROD. A contingency ROD may be appro-
priate when there is significant uncertainty about the
ability of remedial options to achieve cleanup levels (e.g.,
cleanup of an aquifer to MCLs or non-zero MCLGs).
For example, a contingency ROD may be appropriate
when the performance of a treatment technology (or a
demonstrated technology being used on a waste for
which performance data are not available) appears to
be the most promising option, but additional testing
will be needed during remedial design to verify the
technology's performance capabilities; in this case, a
more "proven approach" could be identified as a con-
tingency remedy.5 The ROD should specify under what
circumstances the contingency remedy would be imple-
mented. Be as specific as possible with the criteria that
the lead agency will use to decide to implement the
contingency option as opposed to the selected remedy
(e.g., failure to achieve desired performance levels). The
process by which the contingency will be invoked should
be discussed as well. Generally, an ESD will be re-
quired to invoke a contingency. However, if the con-
4	In some cases, RODs will include both interim actions and a
final action; such RODs should clearly specify which components
of the action are interim and which are final. For any final action
components, the ROD should include the information and docu-
mentation required for the "standard ROD" (see Chapter 6). For
example, where a ROD includes a final source control measure and
a temporary alternate water supply, the ROD must provide the
documentation required in the "standard format" for the final source
control action, as well as addressing in the streamlined manner
above, the rationale and justification for the interim water supply
action. In this example, it would be necessary to address the con-
taminated ground water in a final action ROD at a later time.
5	The use of contingency remedies should be considered care-
fully. Treatability studies and/or field investigations necessary to
evaluate a technology's applicability to the site should be completed
during the RI/FS. More detailed testing necessary to establish
design parameters and performance requirements may be performed
during remedial design.
8-3
-------
Chapter 8: Documenting No Action, Interim Action, and Contingency Remedy Decisions
tingency remedy or the criteria for its selection are not
well-documented in the ROD, a ROD amendment may
be required to invoke this cleanup option at a later point
in time.
The recommended format for contingency rem-
edy RODs is outlined in Highlight 8-8.
8-4
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
	
Highlight 8-4: Documenting a No Action Decision: Action Not Necessary for Protection
Part 1: The Declaration
Site Name and Location
Statement of Basis and Purpose
Assessment of Site
Description of Selected Remedy: The lead agency should state that no CERCLA action is necessary for the
site or operable unit, although it may authorize monitoring to verify that no unacceptable exposures to
potential hazards posed by the site or operable unit occur in the future.
Statutory Determinations: None of the CERCLA §121 statutory determinations are necessary in this
section since no remedy is being selected. Instead, the lead agency should state briefly that no remedial
action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
ROD Data Certification Checklist
Authorizing Signatures
Part 2: Decision Summary
Site Name, Location, and Description
Site History and Enforcement Activities
Community Participation
Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action
Site Characteristics
Current and Potential Future Site and Resource Uses: This section establishes the foundation for the site
risks section, which provides the primary basis for the no action decision. Current and potential future land
and ground-water resource uses should be clearly explained and documented. Site use characteristics
shape the formation of realistic exposure scenarios for the baseline risk assessment.
Site Risks: This section provides the primary basis for the no action decision. The discussion should
support the determination that no remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and
the environment. The lead agency should explain the basis for its conclusion that unacceptable exposures
to hazardous substances will not occur. (In most cases, this will be based on the baseline risk assessment
conducted during the Rl.) This information should correlate with the Current and Potential Future Site
Resource Uses. In limited cases where alternatives were developed in the FS, the lead agency should
reference the RI/FS Report. Generally, an FS is not necessary for a no action decision.
Remedial Action Objectives Development of this and the four subsequent sections is unnecessary when
the baseline risk assessment shows no unacceptable risks at the site.
Description of Alternatives
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Principal Threat Waste
Selected Remedy
Statutory Determinations
Documentation of Significant Changes
Part 3: Responsiveness Summary
Stakeholder Issues and Lead Agency Responses
Technical and Legal Issues
8-5
-------
Chapter 8: Documenting No Action, Interim Action, and Contingency Remedy Decisions
	
Highlight 8-5: Documenting a No Action Decision: No CERCLA Authority to Take Action
Part 1: The Declaration
•	Site Name and Location
•	Statement of Basis and Purpose
•	Assessment of the Site
•	Description of Selected Remedy: The lead agency should state that no CERCLA remedial action can be
taken for the site or operable unit, although it may authorize monitoring to verify that no releases that can be
addressed under CERCLA occur in the future.
•	Statutory Determinations: No §121 statutory determinations are necessary in this section since no remedy
is being selected. This section should explain that EPA does not have authority under CERCLA §§104 or
106 to address the problem(s) posed by the site or operable unit. Explain if the problem has been referred
to other authorities.
•	ROD Data Certification Checklist
•	Authorizing Signatures
Part 2: Decision Summary
•	Site Name, Location, and Description
•	Site History and Enforcement Activities
•	Community Participation
•	Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action
•	Site Characteristics (if necessary)
•	Current and Potential Future Site and Resource Uses (if necessary)
•	Site Risks
•	Remedial Action Objectives
•	Description of Alternatives
•	Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
•	Principal Threat Waste
•	Selected Remedy
•	Statutory Authority Finding: The concluding statement of the absence of CERCLA authority to address the
problem should be the same as in the Declaration.
•	Documentation of Significant Changes
Part 3: Responsiveness Summary
•	Stakeholder Issues and EPA Responses
•	Technical and Legal Issues
8-6
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
	
Highlight 8-6: Documenting a No Action Decision: No Further Action Necessary
Part 1: The Declaration
•	Site Name and Location
•	Statement of Basis and Purpose
•	Assessment of Site
•	Description of Selected Remedy: The lead agency should state that no CERCLA remedial action is neces-
sary for the site or operable unit, although it may authorize monitoring to verify that no unacceptable expo-
sures to risks posed by the site or operable unit occur in the future.
•	ROD Data Certification Checklist
•	Statutory Determinations: This Declaration should state that it has been determined that no remedial
action is necessary at the site or operable unit. The Declaration should explain that previous response(s) at
the site or operable unit eliminated the need to conduct further remedial action. This section should also
note whether a five-year review is required based on the earlier response action(s). "If a remedial action is
selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the Site above
levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no
less often than every five years after initiation of the selected remedial action" (NCP §300.430(f)(4)(ii)).
•	Authorizing Signatures
Part 2: Decision Summary
•	Site Name, Location, and Description
•	Site History and Enforcement Activities: Information related to site history provides perspective, especially
where previous removal(s) have occurred. This information is useful if the No Action ROD is a closeout
ROD.
•	Community Participation
•	Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action
•	Site Characteristics
•	Current and Potential Future Site and Resource Uses: This section establishes the foundation for the site
risks section, which provides the primary basis for the no action decision. Current and potential future land
and ground-water resource uses should be clearly explained and documented. Site use characteristics
shape the formation of realistic exposure scenarios for the baseline risk assessment.
•	Site Risks: This section provides the primary basis for the no action decision. The discussion should
support the determination that no remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and
the environment. The lead agency should explain the basis for its conclusion that unacceptable exposures
to hazardous substances will not occur. (In most cases, this will be based on the baseline risk assessment
conducted during the Rl.) Any previous responses that were conducted at the site or operable unit that
served to eliminate the need for additional remedial action should be summarized in this discussion. In
limited cases where alternatives were developed in the FS, the lead agency should reference the RI/FS
Report.
•	Remedial Action Objectives
•	Description of Alternatives
•	Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
•	Principal Threat Waste
•	Selected Remedy
•	Statutory Determinations
•	Documentation of Significant Changes
Part 3: Responsiveness Summary
•	Stakeholder Issues and Lead Agency Responses
•	Technical and Legal Issues
8-7
-------
Chapter 8: Documenting No Action, Interim Action, and Contingency Remedy Decisions
	
Highlight 8-7: Documenting an Interim Action Decision
Part 1: The Declaration
•	Site Name and Location
•	Statement of Basis and Purpose
•	Assessment of the Site
•	Description of the Selected Remedy
•	Statutory Determinations: The declaration statement should generally read as follows'. This interim action
is protective of human health and the environment in the short term and is intended to provide adequate
protection until a final ROD is signed; complies with (or waives) those federal and state requirements that
are applicable or relevant and appropriate for this limited-scope action; and is cost-effective. This action is
an interim solution only, and is not intended to utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or
resource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this [site/operable unit], [NOTE:
Where treatment is utilized, replace the previous sentence with the following: "Although this interim action is
not intended to address fully the statutory mandate for permanence and treatment to the maximum extent
practicable, this interim action does utilize treatment and thus supports that statutory mandate."] Because
this action does not constitute the final remedy for the [site/operable unif\, the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element [NOTE:
Include if treatment is being used: "although partially addressed in this remedy,"] will be addressed by the
final response action. Subsequent actions planned to address fully the threats posed by conditions at this
[site/operable unit]. Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above
health-based levels, a review will be conducted to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment within five years after commencement of the remedial
action. Because this is an interim action ROD, review of this site and remedy will be ongoing as EPA
continues to develop remedial alternatives for the [site/operable unit].
•	ROD Data Certification Checklist
•	Authorizing Signatures
Part 2: Decision Summary
•	Site Name, Location, and Description
•	Site History and Enforcement Activities
•	Community Participation
•	Scope and Role of Operable Unit: This section provides the rationale for taking the limited action. To the
extent that information is available, the section should detail how the response action fits into the overall site
strategy. This section should state that the interim action will neither be inconsistent with, nor preclude,
implementation of the final remedy.
•	Site Characteristics: This section should focus on the description of those site or operable unit to be
addressed by the interim remedy.
•	Current and Potential Future Site and Resource Uses
•	Site Risks: This section should focus risks addressed by the interim action and should provide the ratio-
nale for the limited scope of the action. The rationale can be supported by facts that indicate that temporary
action is necessary to stabilize the site or a portion of the site, prevent further environmental degradation, or
achieve significant risk reduction quickly while a final remedial solution is being developed. Qualitative risk
information may be presented if quantitative risk information is not yet available. The more specific findings
of the baseline risk assessment, and the ultimate clean-up objectives (i.e., acceptable exposure levels) for
the site or unit, should be included in the subsequent final action ROD for the operable unit.
•	Remedial Action Objectives
•	Description of Alternatives: This section should describe the limited alternatives (including the no action
alternative) that were considered for the interim action (generally three or fewer). Only those requirements
that are applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) to the limited-scope interim action
should be incorporated into the description of alternatives.
•	Comparative Analysis of Alternatives: The comparative analysis should be presented in light of the limited
scope of the action. Evaluation criteria not relevant to evaluation of interim actions need not be addressed
in detail. Rather, their irrelevance to the decision should be noted briefly.
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
	
Highlight 8-7 (cont.): Documenting an Interim Action Decision
•	Principal Threat Waste
•	Selected Remedy
•	Statutory Determinations: The interim action should protect human health and the environment from the
exposure pathway or threat it is addressing and the waste material being managed at least in the short term
(until a final ROD is implemented). The ARARs discussion should focus only on those ARARs specific to
the interim action {e.g., residuals management during implementation). An interim action waiver may be
appropriate where a requirement that is an ARAR cannot be met as part of the interim remedy, but will be
attained (unless use of one of the five waivers is justified) by the final site remedy (CERCLA §121 (d)(4)(A)
and NCP §300.430(f) (1 )(ii)(C)(1)). The discussion under "utilization of permanent solutions and treatment
to the maximum extent practicable" should indicate that the interim action is not designed or expected to be
final, but that the selected remedy represents the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives with respect
to pertinent criteria, given the limited scope of the action. The discussion under the preference for treatment
section should note that the preference will be addressed in the final decision document for the site or final
operable unit, although treatment components "that support the preference" should be noted.
•	Documentation of Significant Changes
Part 3: Responsiveness Summary
•	Stakeholder Issues and Lead Agency Responses
•	Technical and Legal Issues
8-9
-------
Chapter 8: Documenting No Action, Interim Action, and Contingency Remedy Decisions
	
Highlight 8-8: Documenting a Contingency Remedy Decision
Part 1: The Declaration
•	Site Name and Location
•	Statement of Basis and Purpose
•	Assessment of the Site
•	Description of the Selected Remedy: Both the selected remedy and the contingency remedy should be
described in bullet form.
•	Statutory Determinations: The Declaration should be modified to indicate that both the selected remedy
and the contingency remedy will satisfy the statutory requirements.
•	ROD Data Certification Checklist
•	Authorizing Signatures
Part 2: Decision Summary
•	Site Name, Location, and Description
•	Site History and Enforcement Activities
•	Community Participation
•	Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action
•	Site Characteristics
•	Current and Potential Future Site and Resource Uses
•	Site Risks
•	Remedial Action Objectives: This is a crucial section for RODs that contain selected remedies with contin-
gency provisions. A very explicit statement of the RAOs should be included. Other remedy performance
expectations and criteria should be included as well.
•	Description of Alternatives: This section should identify any uncertainties about the use of the technologies
being considered and the extent additional testing is needed. The selected remedy and the contingency
remedy must be fully described.
•	Comparative Analysis of Alternatives: The selected remedy, the contingency remedy, and other alternatives
considered should be evaluated fully against the nine criteria; the uncertainties should be noted, as well as
the expectations for performance. Community (and support agency) acceptance of an innovative technology
should be discussed.
•	Principal Threat Waste
•	Selected Remedy: The selected and contingency remedies should be identified. Additional testing/investi-
gations to occur as part of remedial design to further evaluate the selected remedy should be discussed.
The criteria that will be used to decide to implement the contingency remedy and the vehicle for invoking the
contingency (i.e., ESD) should be identified.
•	Statutory Determinations: The statutory determination discussion should document that both remedies
fulfill CERCLA §121.
•	Documentation of Significant Changes
Part 3: Responsiveness Summary
•	Stakeholder Issues and Lead Agency Responses
•	Technical and Legal Issues
8-10
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
9.0 DOCUMENTING SPECIFIC REMEDY SELECTION SITUATIONS
9.1	INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to provide suggested
language and recommendations for documenting the
following remedy selection cases:
•	Presumptive remedy decisions.
•	Response actions for lead (Pb) in soil.
•	Response actions for ground water.
•	Response actions involving the use of a techni-
cal impracticability waiver.
For each of the special cases listed above, this chapter
provides general background information; details the
sections of the remedy selection decision documents
which may require modification; describes the infor-
mation that should be included in the sections identi-
fied; provides sample language; and identifies sources
of additional information. This chapter does not re-
peat the information presented in Chapters 3 and 6. It
details how the recommended outline and checklist pre-
sented in those chapters should be modified to address
the situations named above.
9.2	DOCUMENTING PRESUMPTIVE
REMEDY DECISIONS
EPA developed the presumptive remedy initiative
to expedite remedy selection at sites with similar char-
acteristics (e.g., municipal landfills) or contaminants (e.g.,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). The selection of
presumptive remedies is based on historical patterns of
remedy selection and current scientific and engineering
information. To date, EPA has issued presumptive rem-
edies for YOCs in soil, municipal landfills, and
woodtreater sites. In addition, EPA issued a presump-
tive response strategy for contaminated ground water
at CERCLA sites and will soon be finalizing a presump-
tive remedy for sites with metals in soils.
9.2.1 Modifications to Remedy Selection
Decision Documents
The presumptive remedy selection approach is con-
sistent with the standard RI/FS and remedy selection
process and requires the same basic remedy selection
documentation requirements, with some modifications
as described below. Certain sections of remedy selec-
tion decision documents should be modified to explain
the context and rationale for a remedy selection deci-
sion based on a presumptive remedy. The recom-
mended documentation approach is described below.
Community Participation Section
Additional community outreach will usually be ap-
propriate when implementing a presumptive remedy
approach to ensure that the community understands the
rationale and basis of the streamlining of remedial al-
ternatives analysis. Any additional community outreach
efforts should be documented in this section.
Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response
Action Section
This section should describe the role of the pre-
sumptive remedy in the response action for this oper-
able unit (e.g., the soils are contaminated with YOCs or
the site was formerly a wood treatment facility). A brief
description of the lead agency's basis for the use of the
presumptive remedy should be provided in this section
(i.e., the site matches the type of site for which the pre-
sumptive approach was designed to address). Infor-
mation on why and how the presumptive remedy pro-
cess streamlines the RI/FS process should be summa-
rized as well. Highlight 9-1 provides sample language
for this section.
Site Characteristics Section
If streamlining mechanisms associated with a pre-
sumptive remedy were used, describe how the site char-
acterization was affected. For example, in the case of a
municipal landfill, describe how the presumptive rem-
edy of containment eliminated the need to characterize
the contents of the landfill, and that site characterization
focused on ground-water contamination.
9-1
-------
Chapter 9: Documenting Specific Remedy Selection Situations
	
Highlight 9-1: Sample Language
for Describing a Presumptive
Remedy Approach
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is considered by EPA
to be a highly effective way to cleanup volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in soils in many
cases. SVE has been identified as a presump-
tive remedy by EPA for VOCs in soil because it
repeatedly has been shown to be effective at
treating similar wastes at other CERCLA sites.
Presumptive remedies were developed by EPA
to streamline the selection of cleanup meth-
ods for certain categories of sites by narrowing
the consideration of cleanup methods to treat-
ment technologies or remediation approaches
that have a proven track record in the Superfund
program. EPA has determined that it is appro-
priate to apply the presumptive remedy for
VOCs in soil at this Operable Unit based on the
soil and contaminant characteristics found at
the site and guidance provided in the directive,
Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization
and Technology Selection for CERCLA Sites
with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils (EPA
540-F-93-048). Further information on the se-
lection of presumptive remedies for VOC soil
contamination is presented in User's Guide to
the VOCs in Soils Presumptive Remedy (EPA
540-F-96-008).
Site Risks Section
A streamlined site risk analysis is possible for some
categories of presumptive remedy sites. For example,
in the case of municipal landfills, the risk evaluation may
be streamlined if ground-water contamination at the
site is sufficient to provide the basis for remedial action.
If a streamlined risk evaluation is performed, a brief
description of the process should be provided in this
section. This description should identify the exposure
pathways evaluated and their associated risk. An expla-
nation should be provided for pathways not quantita-
tively evaluated (e.g., a direct contact threat was not evalu-
ated due to the nature of the cap that is being con-
structed at the site).
Description of Alternatives Section
In addition to the descriptions of alternatives that
are generally found in this section, a brief explanation
of how the alternatives were selected within the con-
text of the presumptive remedy should be provided.
This is particularly important for the presumptive rem-
edies that identify a "suite" of acceptable remediation
technologies or approaches with a preferred technol-
ogy identified (i.e., VOCs in soil, woodtreater sites, and
metals in soils). If the preferred technology is judged
appropriate based on the circumstances of the specific
site in question, an explanation that the preferred tech-
nology and the no action alternatives were the only al-
ternatives considered should be provided. If the pre-
ferred technology was eliminated from consideration
during the RI/FS, an explanation of the factors influ-
encing that decision should be provided, along with any
site-specific factors affecting consideration of the re-
maining presumptive remedies for that category. In
some cases, it also may be appropriate to attach a tech-
nical appendix that provides more information about
the presumptive remedy selected.
9.2.2	Special Considerations for the
Administrative Record File
In order to meet NCP requirements, it is recom-
mended that the Administrative Record file for a pre-
sumptive remedy site generally include the following:
(1) relevant OSWER generic presumptive remedy docu-
ments (listed below); (2) a "bridging" memorandum
or other documentation which shows that the presump-
tive remedy is appropriate to apply to the site in ques-
tion; and (3) a notice in the Administrative Record file
and in the Administrative Record file index regarding
the availability of the data upon which the presumptive
remedy is based. For additional information about
Administrative Record file requirements specific to the
presumptive remedy process, see "Presumptive Remedies and
NCP Compliance, a memorandum from James E. Costello,
Chairperson CERCLA Administrative Records
Workgroup, ORC Region VI, and George B. Wyeth,
Office of General Counsel, dated June 14, 1995 con-
tained in Implementing Presumptive Remedies: ^4 Notebook of
Guidance and Resource Materials (EPA 540-R-97-029, Oc-
tober 1997).
9.2.3	Additional Guidance
The following presumptive remedy directives have
been issued to date, and are available through the
Superfund homepage, http://www.epa.gov/
superfund/oerr/techres/index.htm. All of these docu-
ments are also contained in ImplementingPresumptive Rem-
9-2
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
edies: ^4 Notebook of Guidance and Resource Materials (EPA
540-R-97-029, October 1997).
•	Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures (EPA
540-F-93-047, September 1993).
•	Presumptive Remedies andNCP Compliance (Memo-
randum from James E. Costello, Chairperson
CERCLA Administrative Records Workgroup,
ORC Region VI, and George B. Wyeth, Office
of General Counsel, dated June 14, 1995).
•	Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterisation and Tech-
nology Selection for CERCLA Sites with Volatile
Organic Compounds in Soils (EPA 540-F-93-048,
September 1993).
•	Presumptive Remedyfor CERCLA Municipal Landfill
Sites (EPA 540-F-93-035, September 1993).
•	Presumptive Remedies for Soils, Sediments, and Slud-
ges at Wood Treater Sites (EPA 540-R-95-128,
December 1995).
•	Presumptive R^ponse Strategy and Ex-situ Treatment
Technologies for Contaminated Ground Water at
CERCLA Sites (EPA 540-R-96-023, October
1996).
•	Application of the CERCLA Municipal Landfill
Presumptive Remedy to Military Landfills (EPA 540-
F-96-020, December 1996).
•	User's Guide to the VOCs in Soils Presumptive Rem-
edy (EPA 540-F-96-008, July 1996).
•	Presumptive Remedy: Supplemental bulletin Multi-
Phase Extraction (MPE) Technology for VOCs in
Soil and Ground Water (EPA 540-F-97-004, April
1997).
•	Presumptive Remedy for Sites with Metals in Soils
(Forthcoming).
9.3 DOCUMENTING RESPONSE
ACTIONS THAT ADDRESS LEAD
(Pb) IN SOIL
Sites with lead (Pb) contamination require special
documentation because a unique risk assessment meth-
odology is employed to evaluate potential threats to
human health at such sites. As a result, the Summary of
Site Risks, Selected Remedy, and Remedial Action Objectives
sections should address the issues that are unique to sites
contaminated with Pb.
9.3.1 Modifications to Remedy Selection
Decision Documents
Site Risks Section and Selected Remedy Section
(Expected Outcomes)
The Summary of Site Risks and Selected Remedy sec-
tions should document the use of Pb models and the
site-specific assumptions that were made to determine
remediation goals (e.g., cleanup levels) for Pb in soil.
Any studies of blood lead levels (PbBs) performed by
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), as well as any additional EPA technical re-
views should also be summarized. The information in
the following discussion is intended to complement the
suggested content for these sections, as described in
Sections 6.3.7 and 6.3.12.
Important issues to document in these sections will
depend on which methodology was used to assess Pb
risks at the site. Three scenarios are described below:
Scenario 1: IEUBK Modelfor Children1 Used to Determine
Cleanup Levels for Lead in Soil
If the IEUBK Model was used, the Summary of
Site Risks section should explain the following informa-
tion:
1 The Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model
for Lead (Pb) in Children predicts PbB levels for children (age six
months to seven years) exposed to Pb in their environment. The
IEUBK model takes into account site-specific concentrations of
Pb in various media in evaluating children's exposure to Pb con-
tamination. Common site-specific inputs include Pb concentra-
tions in soil, dust, air, water, and paint. In the absence of site-
specific data, the model utilizes default values stored in the model.
These values represent typical background concentrations in the
United States. The IEUBK model employs the user-specified and
default Pb values in a series of complex equations to estimate the
potential concentration of Pb in the blood of a hypothetical child
or population of children.
9-3
-------
Chapter 9: Documenting Specific Remedy Selection Situations
•	Range of Pb concentrations detected for me-
dium-specific inputs (e.g., concentrations in soil,
air, and water).
•	Exposure pathway (e.g., ingestion of soil, paint)
associated with the exceedance of acceptable
blood lead concentration.
•	Summary of site-specific studies conducted
(e.g., PbB, relative bioavailability (RBA)).
•	Output of the model (e.g., percentage of chil-
dren with PbBs in excess of 10 micrograms
per deciliter (jag/dL)).
•	References to the portions of the RI/FS or
risk assessment that detail use of the model.
The Selected Remedy section should contain a com-
plete discussion of expected outcomes, including a dis-
cussion of the selected cleanup levels for the remedial
action. In the Proposed Plan, this discussion should
contain preliminary remediation goals (PRCs) for site
soils and other media that address Pb risk. In the ROD,
this discussion should contain the final cleanup levels
and the rationale for any modifications from the PRCs.
The following source provides additional informa-
tion on the IEUBI-C model: Guidance Manualfor the Inte-
grated Exposure Uptake Isokinetic (IEUBK) Modelfor Lead
in Children (EPA 540-R-93-089, February 1994).
Scenario 2: Interim Adult Methodology1 Used to Determine
Cleanup levels for Lead in Soil
If the Interim Adult methodology was used, the
Summary of Site Risks section should explain the follow-
ing information:
•	Range of Pb concentrations detected for me-
dium-specific inputs (e.g, Pb concentrations in
soil, air, and water).
2 The Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with
Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil guidance utilizes a methodology
for assessing risks associated with non-residential adult exposures
to Pb in soil. This approach primarily focuses on estimating fetal
PbB concentrations in pregnant women exposed to Pb-contami-
nated soils. This approach also provides tools that can be used to
evaluate the risk of elevated PbB concentrations among exposed
adults.
•	Exposure scenario (e.g., commercial or indus-
trial).
•	References to the portions of the RI/FS or
risk assessment that detail use of the method-
ology.
The Selected Remedy section should contain a com-
plete discussion of expected outcomes, including a dis-
cussion of the selected cleanup levels for the remedial
action. In the Proposed Plan, this discussion should
contain preliminary remediation goals (PRCs) for site
soils and other media that address Pb risk. In the ROD,
this discussion should contain the final cleanup levels
and the rationale for any modifications from the PRCs.
Scenario 3: Neither of the above methodologies used to develop
soil cleanup levels
If neither of the above methods was used, the Se-
lected Remedy section should explain the following:
•	The basis and rationale for the final cleanup
levels for lead in soils.
•	Why neither of the above tools was used to
determine these levels.
Highlight 9-2 provides sample language for these
discussions.
Remedial Action Objectives Section
The Remedial Action Objectives section should also
address the unique circumstances posed by a site con-
taminated with Pb. The Revised Interim Soil Lead Guid-
ance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action facili-
ties (EPA 540-F-94-043, July 1994) provides the fol-
lowing guidance for how the remedial action objec-
tives should be described for site contaminated with
Pb: "EPA will generally take a response action if cir-
cumstances indicate that there is a greater than 5% prob-
ability that the blood lead levels of a child (age 6 to 84
months) may exceed 10 micrograms per deciliter. In
accordance with this policy, one of the remedial action
objectives at this site is that there will be no more than a
5% chance of a child's blood lead value exceeding 10
micrograms per deciliter."
9-4
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
•	Clarification to the 1994 Revised Interim Soil Lead
Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Correc-
tive Action Facilities (EPA 540-F-98-030, August
27, 1998).
•	Guidance Manual for the Integrated Exposure Up-
take Bio kinetic (IEUBK) Model for Eead in Chil-
dren (OSWER Directive 9285.7-15-1, Febru-
ary 1994).
9.
EPA's Technical Review Workgroup for Lead
Home Page provides information regarding lead risk
assessment and the use of the IEUBK model and In-
terim Adult methodology (http://www.epa.gov/
superfund/programs/lead/index.htm), including the
following documents:
• Revised Interim Soil Eead Guidance for CERCEA
Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities (EPA
540-F-94-043, July 1994).
•	Recommendations of the Technical Review
Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach
to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Ex-
posures to Lead in Soil, December 1996.
9.4 DOCUMENTING GROUND-WATER
REMEDY DECISIONS
This section presents the suggested documentation
approach when selected remedies address contaminated
ground water. Ground-water remedy decisions often
involve complex site conditions or remedy components
that require additional explanation. Appendix B con-
tains sample language for documenting specific ground-
water remediation scenarios {e.g., phased approach,
NAPLs, monitored natural attenuation), and should be
used in conjunction with this chapter when writing a
remedy selection decision document.
9.4.1 Modifications to the Remedy
Selection Decision Documents
Site Characteristics Section
In documenting ground-water remedy decisions it
is important that the Site Characteristics section reflect
specific information unique to a ground-water site. In
particular, this section should include the following in-
formation:
•	Nature and extent of ground-water contami-
nation including source(s) of contamination,
COCs, estimated extent and volume of con-
taminated plume and the potential for migra-
tion of the contaminant plume.
•	Geology and hydrogeology of the site and
surroundings (in addition to the topography and
geography), including the following:
Highlight 9-2: Sample Language for
Evaluation of Human Health Risks
at Sites with Lead (Pb)
Contamination
The Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
(IEUBK) model for lead (Pb) in children was
used to evaluate the risks posed to young chil-
dren as a result of the lead (Pb) contamination
at this site. Because Pb does not have a na-
tionally approved reference dose (RfD), slope
factor, or other accepted toxicological factor
which can be used to assess risk, standard
risk assessment methods cannot be used to
evaluate the health risks associated with Pb
contamination. The IEUBK model was run us-
ing site-specific data to predict a Pb soil level
that will be protective of children and other resi-
dents. Site-specific soil and ground-water Pb
concentrations, as detailed in the summary
tables for the Chemicals of Concern (COCs) in
this ROD, were used in place of model default
values. The IEUBK Model predicted that expo-
sure to site soils would result in children's blood
lead (PbB) levels that range from 7.8 to 12.5
[jg/dL. Assuming a geometric standard devia-
tion of 1.6, this range of values results in a dis-
tribution of PbB levels where approximately
15% of children aged 6 months to 7 years have
blood lead (PbB) levels in excess of the level of
concern recommended by the Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention (10 |jg/dL). A PbB
study was not conducted at this site because
the site is primarily industrial and has localized
Pb contamination that has not impacted nearby
residential areas. In addition, residents were
not supportive of a community PbB study. To
protect future residents in the local area, the
IEUBK model was used to calculate a prelimi-
nary remediation goal (PRG) for Pb in soil of
540 ppm.
3.2 Additional Guidance
9-5
-------
Chapter 9: Documenting Specific Remedy Selection Situations
Aquifer(s) affected or threatened by site
contamination, types of geologic materi-
als, approximate depths, whether aquifer
is confined or unconfmed.
Ground-water flow directions within each
aquifer and between aquifers and ground-
water discharge locations (e.g., surface wa-
ters, wetlands, other aquifers).
Interconnection between surface contami-
nation (e.g., soils) and ground-water con-
tamination.
Confirmed or suspected presence and lo-
cation of NAPLs.
If ground-water models were used to de-
fine the fate and transport of COCs, iden-
tify the model used and major model as-
sumptions.
Current and Potential Future Site and Resource
Uses Section
This section of the ROD (and the relevant discus-
sion in the Proposed Plan) should explain the current
ground-water uses and document the basis for future
ground-water use assumptions. If the State has a Com-
prehensive State Ground Water Protection Plan
(CSGWPP), its impact on future use assumptions also
needs to be addressed (see The Role of CSGWPPs in
EEA Remediation Programs (EPA 540-F-95-084, April 4,
1997)). If a potential future use of the ground water is
as a drinking water source, the approximate time frame
of this potential future use should be estimated and
reported in this section as it may have an impact on the
remediation time frames evaluated in subsequent sec-
tions (e.g., use as a drinking water source not anticipated
within the next 20 years).
Remedial Action Objectives Section
When addressing ground-water contamination, the
Remedial Action Objectives section of the Proposed Plan
and ROD needs to clearly present the intended results
of the remedial action. A range of Remedial Action
Objectives (RAOs) may be applicable to ground-water
remedy decisions. Some of these objectives may be
achievable in a relatively short time frame (e.g., exposure
control, plume containment), while other objectives may
require a much longer time frame (e.g., plume restora-
tion) . For this reason, ground-water decision documents
must present clear and precise documentation of the
RAOs. The information presented in this section should
be of sufficient detail to allow for a comprehensive
analysis of remedial alternatives.
Ground-water remedies should be expressed in
terms of the following overall objectives, clearly indi-
cating which objectives are to be achieved over which
portion of the plume, whether they are interim or final,
and in what time frames these objectives are expected
to be achieved:
1.	Prevent exposure to contaminated ground
water, above acceptable risk levels.
2.	Prevent or minimize further migration of the
contaminant plume (source control).
3.	Prevent or minimize further migration of con-
taminants from source materials to ground
water (source control).
4.	Return ground water to its expected beneficial
uses wherever practicable (aquifer restoration).
Description of Alternatives Section
This section should highlight the following infor-
mation for ground-water response decisions:
• Ground-Water Extraction and Treatment Compo-
nents. Describe the following as appropriate:
Ground-water extraction method.
Location for discharging treated ground
water.
Technologies for treating extracted ground
water. Discuss whether presumptive treat-
ment technologies or innovative technolo-
gies are being used for this purpose.
Additional treatment and/or management
for treatment residuals.
Other methods/technologies that will be
used for aquifer remediation (e.g., air
9-6
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
sparging, in-situ bioremediation, monitored
natural attenuation) and indicate whether
any are innovative technologies.
•	Ground-water or Source Containment (e.g., NAPE)
Components. Describe the following as appro-
priate:
Containment method (e.g., subsurface bar-
riers, hydraulic control).
Area of source material or ground-water
plume to be contained (both areal extent
and vertical extent).
Basis for establishing containment area (e.g.,
known or suspected extent of NAPLs,
extent of plume above MCLs).
Geologic stratum that will serve as a bot-
tom for the containment system. If none,
explain how containment system will be
effective.
•	Ground-Water Components that Incorporate Moni-
tored Natural Attenuation. Describe the follow-
ing as appropriate:
Portions of the plume that will be ad-
dressed using a monitored natural attenua-
tion approach.
Explain why monitored natural attenuation
is expected to attain cleanup levels (or other
remedial action objectives) in a time frame
that is reasonable when compared to the
cleanup time frames of the other alterna-
tives and when compared to the time frame
of the anticipated resource use.
Institutional controls that will restrict the
use of ground water until cleanup levels
are attained.
Selected Remedy Section
This section should expand on the level of detail
provided in the previous discussion, especially with re-
gard to the following:
•	Presentation of a detailed (e.g., 1-2 page) cost
estimate for the selected remedy.
•	Phased implementation stages of the remedy
that will be used to optimize the remedy for
site conditions and increase cost-effectiveness.
•	Remedy refinements that may be needed dur-
ing the life of the remedy (e.g., adjusting the
number of extraction wells, adjusting the
pumping rate, pulsed pumping of some wells).
•	If applicable, the contingency actions that will
be implemented in the event that remedy does
not perform as expected (especially important
for remedies such as natural attenuation).
•	Brief discussion of the monitoring program
necessary to ensure remedy effectiveness as well
as the entity responsible for maintaining the
monitoring program (especially important for
remedies with long durations such as natural
attenuation).
•	Provisions for ground-water monitoring once
the system is shut off to ensure cleanup levels
are maintained.
•	Identification and description of institutional
controls to be implemented.
9.4.2 Additional Guidance
Additional guidance can be found in Appendix B
of this document and in the following:
•	Presumptive 'Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treat-
ment Technologies for Contaminated Ground Water at
CERCLA Sites (EPA 540-R-96-023, October
1996).
•	Considerations in Ground-Water Remediation of
Superfund Sites and RCRA Facilities (OSWER
9283.1-06, May 1992).
•	Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticabil-
ity of Ground-Water Restoration (EPA 540-R-93-
080, October 1993).
9-7
-------
Chapter 9: Documenting Specific Remedy Selection Situations
9.5 DOCUMENTING TECHNICAL
IMPRACTICABILITY (Tl) WAIVERS
Since Technical Impracticability (IT) waivers are only
used when site-specific cleanups cannot meet regula-
tory requirements, their use requires special documen-
tation in Proposed Plans, RODs, ROD Amendments,
and ESDs. This section describes how a technical im-
practicability (TI) waiver of an Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) should be docu-
mented in these decision documents.
Technical impracticability is the basis for one of the
six statutory and regulatory ARAR waivers provided
for in CERCLA §121(d)(4)(C) and NCP
§300.430(^(1) (ii) (C)(3). A technical impracticability
waiver may be used when compliance with an ARAR is
technically impracticable; that is, compliance is not fea-
sible from an engineering standpoint or because of ex-
cessive costs, particularly in relation to performance.3
TI waivers most often are used for ARARs that are
used to establish cleanup performance standards or lev-
els such as Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) under the Clean Air Act or Maximum Con-
taminant Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water
Act, or State requirements that are more stringent than
MCLs.
A decision to propose or invoke a TI waiver can
be made at any time during the remedial process, but
must be included in a remedy selection decision docu-
ment. Information supporting the TI decision can be
included in the RI/FS, a separate TI evaluation report,
or in a separate section or technical appendix of the
decision document itself. When a TI waiver is invoked,
an alternative remediation strategy must be developed
that ensures protection of human health and the envi-
ronment. Both the TI waiver decision and the alterna-
tive remedial strategy must be documented in an ap-
propriate decision document. A TI waiver decision
can be made prior to implementation of the ground-
water remedy, if sufficient information is available to
support such a decision; or after implementation of the
ground-water remedy when remedy performance data
demonstrate that a TI waiver is justified.
3 Cost is relevant to the technical impracticability waiver be-
cause engineering feasibility is ultimately limited by cost. EPA's
policy is that cost can be considered in evaluating technical imprac-
ticability although it "should generally play a subordinate role" and
should not be a major factor unless compliance would be "inordi-
nately cosdy" (55 FR at 8748, March 8, 1990).
Remedial Project Managers should contact the ap-
propriate Regional Coordinator at EPA Headquarters
to determine the review procedure for invoking a tech-
nical impracticability waiver. As summarized below,
certain issues should be addressed in a Proposed Plan,
ROD, ROD Amendment, or ESD when a TI waiver is
invoked. More specific documentation recommenda-
tions are provided in Highlight 9-4.
9.5.1	Discussion of a TI Waiver in a
Proposed Plan
If sufficient site characterization and other support-
ing information is available as a result of the RI/FS, a
decision to invoke a TI waiver can be made in a subse-
quent decision document. In such a case, the Proposed
Plan should explain that the lead Agency plans to in-
voke a TI waiver in the subsequent ROD or ROD
amendment and describe the site conditions that make
compliance with the ARAR technically impracticable.
The Proposed Plan provides the foundation for invok-
ing the TI waiver in the ROD. CERCLA and the NCP
specify that the Proposed Plan must provide an expla-
nation of any proposed ARAR waiver to allow the
public an opportunity to comment on the waiver (NCP
§300.430(f) (2) (iv)). EPA must respond to any signifi-
cant Federal agency, State or public comments concern-
ing the use of ARAR waivers. (Requirements for State
and community involvement are provided in NCP
§§300.430 and 300.500 - 300.515.) More detailed ex-
planation supporting the TI waiver determination should
be included in the subsequent ROD or ROD amend-
ment.
9.5.2	Discussion of a TI Waiver in a ROD
or ROD Amendment
A Technical Impracticability Waiver should be pre-
sented in a ROD only if it has been preceded by a
public announcement of the waiver in a Proposed Plan.
In the case of a ROD amendment, public comment on
the appropriateness of a TI waiver should also be so-
licited. The most important sections of the ROD for
documenting a TI waiver are as follows:
•	Site Characterization.
•	Remedial Action Objectives.
•	Selected Remedy.
•	Statutory Determinations.
9-8
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
A decision to modify the remedy selected in a pre-
viously signed ROD by invoking a TI waiver may con-
stitute a fundamental change, and thus warrant a ROD
amendment and requisite public comment procedures.
When a fundamental change is proposed for a ROD,
the lead agency must adhere to the public participation
and documentation procedures specified in the NCP
which include issuance of a proposed amendment to
the ROD for public comment (NCP §300.435(c) (2) (ii)).
A ROD or ROD Amendment supporting a TI
waiver should document the following:
•	Site conditions that justify the TI waiver. This
will generally be a summary of information
contained in the TI evaluation report, or simi-
lar technical document.
•	Explanation of how the TI waiver is reflected
in the Remedial Action Objectives and how it
modifies the objectives.
•	How human health and the environment will
be protected by an alternate remedial strategy.
•	Specific changes in the remedy that will result
from the TI waiver.
•	Specific ARARs that are waived due to TI and
whether the requirements are applicable or rel-
evant and appropriate.
9.5.3 Discussion of a TI Waiver in an
Explanation of Significant
Differences
In some instances an ESD may be used to invoke a
TI waiver. For instance, an ESD can be used in cases
where the revised remedy is generally consistent with
the contingency remedy discussed in the original ROD
and that ROD satisfied the following conditions:
1. Contained detailed discussions of the potential
need for a future TI waiver;
If an ESD is determined to be sufficient, public
notice and opportunity for comment should also be
provided (although not required by the NCP, public
comment is highly recommended when invoking a TI
waiver). For more information on an ESD or ROD
Amendment, see Chapter 7 of this document.
9.5.4 Additional Guidance
Highlight 9-3 provides tips for documenting the
use of TI waivers. The following documents provide
more detailed guidance for evaluation of Technical
Impracticability and use of Technical Impracticability
waivers:
•	Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticabil-
ity of Ground-Water Restoration (EPA 540-R-93-
080, October 1993).
•	Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treat-
ment Technologies for Contaminated Ground Water at
CERCLA Sites, Tinal Guidance (EPA 540-R-96-
023, October 1996).
	
Highlight 9-3: Tips for Documenting
Use of a Technical Impracticability
Waiver
•	Often a decision to modify the remedy selected
in a previous ROD by invoking a TI waiver will
constitute a fundamental change in the rem-
edy and will require a ROD amendment.
•	The most important parts of the ROD for docu-
menting a TI waiver are the site characteriza-
tion, remediation objectives, selected remedy
description, and statutory determinations sec-
tions.
•	Where the TI waiver applies to several alterna-
tives, and the waived ARAR(s) and justification
are identical, this information can be described
once and referenced in the text for other alter-
natives.
•	The ROD should state which ARAR(s) are be-
ing waived and whether the requirement is ap-
plicable, or relevant and appropriate.
•	The decision to invoke a TI waiver can occur at
any time during implementation of a remedial
action, regardless of whether the decision
document contains contingency language.
2.	Identified a contingency remedy (e.g., alternate
remedial strategy) to be used in the event a TI
waiver was determined to be appropriate for
the site (such an alternate remedial strategy must
have been discussed in the nine criteria analysis
in the original ROD); and
3.	Specific conditions were identified that would
be used as the basis for implementing the con-
tingency remedy (i.e., triggers).
9-9
-------
	 	
Highlight 9-4: Technical Impracticability Waiver Information for Proposed Plans and RODs
This table shows the additional information that should be included in a Proposed Plan or ROD when a Tl waiver is proposed or invoked.
Section
Proposed Plan
ROD
DECLARATION
Description of Selected
Remedy
Not Applicable
~ Identify the Tl waiver as a component of the remedy and provide a brief justification for
the waiver.
Statutory Determinations
Not Applicable
~ Use the following standard language: "The Selected Remedy is protective of human
health and the environment, complies with or meets the requirements for a waiver of
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate
to the remedial action, is cost effective, and utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable."
DECISION SUMMARY
Site Background
(Proposed Plan)/
Site Characteristics
(ROD)
Site Characteristics is
presented as a separate
section in the ROD,
however it is included as a
component of the Site
Background in the
Proposed Plan.
Describe site characteristics that show there are constraints on attaining ARAR(s), (The Tl
waiver does not need to be mentioned in this section; however, the foundation for proposing the
waiver later in the decision document should be provided.)
Site characteristics include the following:
~	The nature and extent of contamination.
~	Key site conditions shown in the Site Conceptual Model that limit restoration of media
and attainment of ARAR (e.g., geologic or hydraulic conditions, contaminant fate and
transport, contaminant sources).
~	Briefly describe remedy performance data if appropriate, under the Site Background
section in the Proposed Plan, (e.g., studies show no technology is effective in removing
contaminant X from the media under certain conditions found at the site).
Describe site charactenstics that show there are constraints on attaining ARAR(s). (The Tl
waiver does not need to be mentioned in this section, however, the foundation for proposing the
waiver later in the decision document should be provided.)
Site characteristics include the following:
~ The nature and extent of contamination.
o Key site conditions shown in the Site Conceptual Model that limit restoration of media
and attainment of ARAR (e.g., geologic or hydraulic conditions, contaminant fate and
transport, contaminant sources). The ROD should provide more information on this
topic than the Proposed Plan, such as specific site characterization studies and
diagrams showing the extent of contamination.
o Describe remedy performance data pertinent to invoking the Tl waiver, if available. This
information could be included at the conclusion of the Site Characteristics section.
Remedial Action
Objectives
~ Describe how the Remedial Action Objectives, such as those related to attaining ARARs
and cleanup levels for the site, were modified by the Tl waiver (e.g., the Tl waiver may
have been factored into the cleanup goals by assuming ARARs would not be met in part
of the ground-water plume).
~ Describe how the Remedial Action Objectives, such as those related to attaining ARARs
and cleanup levels for the site, were modified by the Tl waiver (e.g., the Tl waiver may
have been factored into the cleanup levels by assuming ARARs would not be met in part
of the ground-water plume).
Summary of Alternatives
(Proposed Plan)/
Description of
Alternatives (ROD)
n For each alternative where a Tl waiver is proposed or invoked, identify the ARAR(s)
being waived.
~ For each alternative where a Tl waiver is proposed or invoked, generally describe the
ARAR(s) being waived (e.g., Federal and State drinking water standards).
o
ra-
ti)
t3
CD
o
o
c
3
-&
CD
O
=Q
CD
3
CD
X
tn
CD
c/>
-------
Section
Proposed Plan
ROD
Evaluation of
Alternatives (Proposed
Plan)/ Comparative
Analysis of Alternatives
(ROD)
Threshold criteria:
~	Overall protection of human health and the environment.
- Briefly address how alternatives with a Ti ARAR waiver component will be
protective (this criterion draws on ARARs, among other factors, to assess
protectiveness).
~	Compliance with ARARs (or justify a waiver).
Identify the specific ARARs under each alternative for which a waiver is
proposed or invoked.
Provide a brief justification for the TI waiver, and explain that more detailed
justification is provided in the preferred alternative section of the Proposed
Plan.
Balancing criteria:
~	Describe, where appropriate, how the TI waiver will impact the performance of each
balancing criterion (e.g., will there be less reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume
because of the waiver?)
Modifying Criteria:
~	Describe both the State and the community positions on the TI waiver. (The State's
position is especially important when State ARARs are waived. This information may
not be available for Proposed Plans.)
Threshold criteria:
~	Overall protection of human health and the environment.
Briefly address how alternatives with a TI ARAR waiver component will be
protective (this criterion draws on ARARs, among other factors, to assess
protectiveness).
~	Compliance with ARARs (or justify a waiver).
Identify the specific ARARs under each alternative for which a waiver is
proposed or invoked.
Provide a brief justification for the TI waiver, and explain that more detailed
justification is provided in the Selected Remedy section of the ROD.
Balancing criteria:
~	Describe, where appropriate, how the TI waiver will impact the performance of each
balancing criterion (e.g., will there be less reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume
because of the waiver?)
Modifying Criteria:
~	Describe both the State and the community positions on the TI waiver. (The State's
position is especially important when State ARARs are waived.)
Preferred Alternative
(Proposed Plan)/
Selected Remedy (ROD)
~	State that a TI ARAR waiver is a component of the remedy but that other components
of the remedy will provide protection from site contamination {i.e., the alternative
remedial strategy).
~	In the expected outcomes section, explain the impact the TI waiver will have on land and
water uses and on risk reduction.
Describe the TI waiver in a separate sub-section under the Selected Remedy description.
Include the following information:
~	Generally describe the ARARs for which a TI waiver will be invoked.
~	Summary of the most important data, analysis, studies, and remedy performance
information that provide the foundation for the waiver (reference Technical
Impracticability Evaluation or other relevant documents in the Administrative Record file
as a source of additional information).
~	Describe components of the remedy that constitute the alternate remedial strategy.
Even though some ARARs are waived, the remedy must protect human health and the
environment. For example, the alternative strategy should prevent further contamination
migration and prevent exposure to the contaminated ground water. Describe remedy
components used to achieve these objectives.
~	In the expected outcomes section, explain the impact the TI Waiver will have on land
and water uses and on risk reduction.
G)
c
a
CD
O
5
CD
Qj
3'
CQ
CO
-g
CD
6
=5
a
o
o
(ft
CD
a
"T3
cy
=5
33
CD
3
CD
X
CO
CD
CD
-------
Section
Proposed Plan
ROD
Statutory Determinations
Not Applicable
A remedy is required to comply with ARARs, and if it does not, a waiver must be justified:
~	Cite each ARAR for which a Tl waiver will be invoked. Identify whether it is an
applicable requirement or a requirement that is relevant and appropriate.
~	Reference the statutory and regulatory authority for a Tl waiver (CERCLA §121 (d)(4)(C)
and NCP §300.430(f)(1)(ii)(C)(3)).
~	Summarize the principal reasons that justify the waiver (be specific).
~	Cite ARARs that are expected to be attained by the remedy
A remedy must satisfy the preference for treatment, and if it does not, justification for not
meeting this preference must be provided:
~	Describe any impact the Tl waiver will have on complying with the statutory requirement
to reduce toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment.
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
APPENDIXA
SAMPLE PROPOSED PLAN
-------
Superfund Program
Proposed Plan
EIO Industrial Site
Region 4
EPA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan identifies the Preferred
Alternative for cleaning up the contaminated soil and
ground water at the EIO Industrial Site and provides the
rationale for this preference. In addition, this Plan
includes summaries of other cleanup alternatives evaluated
for use at this site. This document is issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the lead agency
for site activities, and the Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation (TDEC), the support
agency. EPA, in consultation with the TDEC, will select
a final remedy for the site after reviewing and considering
all information submitted during the 30-day public
comment period. EPA, in consultation with the TDEC,
may modify the Preferred Alternative or select another
response action presented in this Plan based on new
information or public comments. Therefore, the public is
encouraged to review and comment on all the alternatives
presented in this Proposed Plan.
EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its public
participation responsibilities under Section 300.430(f)(2)
of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This Proposed Plan summarizes
information that can be found in greater detail in the RI/FS
report and other documents contained in the
Administrative Record file for this site. EPA and the State
Dates to remember:
MARK YOUR CALENDAR
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:
March 1 - March 30,1999
U.S. EPA will accept written comments on the Proposed
Plan during the public comment period.
PUBLIC MEETING:
March 13,1999
U.S. EPA will hold a public meeting to explain the
Proposed Plan and all of the alternatives presented in the
Feasibility Study. Oral and written comments will also be
accepted at the meeting. The meeting will be held at
Nameless Community Hall, 237 Appleton Street,
Nameless, TN at 7:30 p.m.
For more information, see the Administrative Record
at the following locations:
Public Library	U.S. EPA Records Center
619 South 20th Street Region 4
Nameless, TN 00000 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
(101) 999-1099	Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
Hours: Mon-Sat,	(555)-555-5555
9 a.m. to 9 p.m.	Hours: Mon-Fri,
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Pro -Remfirtial
The Superfund Pipeline
Remedial Response Process
/T~	:—		T				:—				\			— \
Prctawwry Assessment i \	I	\	\	\
^ >SS," I | «¦? J "ST*
Placement on National y j	/ ' Dl / ' • /	' /
Mrtonty List
y
Proposed Rer-yrd of
Plan Decision
(ROD)
A-1
-------
encourage the public to review these documents to gam a
more comprehensive understanding of the site and
Superfund activities that have been conducted at the site.
SITE HISTORY
Beginning in the early 1980s, the EIO Industrial
Company disposed of liquid industrial wastes at its plant
located at 81 North Delaware Avenue in Nameless,
Tennessee. The wastes were disposed of in four unlined
lagoons on the ten-acre site until site operations ceased in
1990. As a result of disposal activities, contaminants
seeped from the lagoons into site soil. Although the EIO
Industrial Company emptied the lagoons in 1991, the soil
remained contaminated. In addition, ground water is
contaminated at and around the site. The ground water
served as a drinking water source for area residents until
EPA provided an alternate water supply in 1996.
The site was placed on the Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL) in 1994. On January 11, 1995, a
consent decree was lodged among EPA, TDEC, and the
EIO Industrial Company outlining the terms by which the
cleanup would be conducted. Under the terms of the
consent decree, which was approved by an Administrative
Judge following a public comment period, the EIO
Industrial Company will implement, and incur all costs
associated with, the agreed upon response action.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
In 1996 and 1997, the EIO Industrial Company
conducted a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) under EPA's oversight. The RI/FS identified the
types, quantities, and locations of contaminants and
developed ways to address the contamination problems.
The RI indicated that:
•	Within the former lagoon area, on-site surface and
subsurface soils are contaminated with
benzo(a)pyrene (B[a]P), 4,4'-DDT, and dieldrin.
Contamination extends to a depth of three feet over a
225' x 300' area.
•	A plume of ground water contaminated with
trichloroethylene (TCE) extends from the site to the
XYZ River, which is a half-mile away. The plume of
{¦'
' y .jsfi.oiy' " Ljikft'ort
¦ /'J / 3/
Extent of soil
contamination
F-'ro|>5rty Line
= Primary TCE Plume.TCE concentration is greater than 100 ppb.
= SecondaivTCE Plume. TCE ooriapn trail on le greater than a ppb
and lass than 100 ppb.
WHAT ARE THE "CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN"?
EPA and the TDEC have identified four contaminants that pose the
greatest potential risk to human health at this site.
Benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P): Benzo(a)pyrene, detected onsite at
concentrations ranging from 100 to 430 ppm, is a polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) that is formed when gasoline,
garbage, or any animal or plant material is burned. It is found in
cigarette smoke, soot, creosote, and the coal tar pitch that industry
uses to join electrical parts together. B(a)P is a probable human
carcinogen. According to information provided by the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), B(a)P has been
found to cause cancer in laboratory animals when applied to their
skin. It has also been shown to be harmful to mice fetuses,
causing birth defects and lower-than-normal body weight in
newborns. B(a)P is not very mobile and binds readily to soils.
4,4'-DDT: DDT, detected onsite at concentrations ranging from 20
to 350 ppm, is an organochlorine compound widely used after
WWII as an agricultural pesticide and malaria control agent. The
United States banned the use of DDT in 1372 because of its
adverse environmental and health effects. DDT is a probable
human carcinogen. Short-term exposure to DDT primarily affects
the central nervous system; direct contact may cause rashes or
irritation of the eyes, nose and throat. Long-term exposure at low
doses causes some changes in the level of liver enzymes in
humans. DDT can persist for a long time in the environment,
bound to soils.
Dieldrin: Dieldrin, detected onsite at concentrations ranging from
15to 60 ppm, is an organochlorine compound widely used from the
1950s to 1970s as an insecticide in agriculture, for subsurface
termite treatment, and for control of disease vectors such as
mosquitos. Most uses of dieldrin (termite control was an exception)
were banned in 1974 because of its adverse environmental and
health effects. In 1987 EPA banned all uses of dieldrin. Dieldrin
is a probable human carcinogen. Short-term exposure to dieldrin
can cause headaches, dizziness, loss of consciousness, nausea,
and loss of appetite, Dieldrin can persist for a long time in the
environment, bound to soils.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): TCE, detected in ground water at
concentrations ranging from 0.055 to 12 ppm, is a halogenated
organic compound historically used as a solvent and degreaser in
many industries. Exposure to this compound has been associated
with deleterious health effects in humans, including anemia, skin
rashes, diabetes, liver conditions, and urinary tract disorders.
Based on laboratory studies, TCE is considered a probable human
carcinogen.
A-2
-------
CofY.w- ¦ act Licit Ion u»-d U>. nanwitl
r n i du-.ii - ? ik
5 1 QOppc
/ <	i	Ct*> Cu»f n«ifl Luyvf,
NOT TO SCALE	/	/ /
contaminants is confined to the surficial aquifer, and
has not penetrated a clay confining layer that occurs
approximately 45' below ground surface. TCE was not
detected in any of the soil samples collected from the
site.
• In the immediate vicinity of the former lagoons,
concentrations of ground water contaminants exceed
100 parts per billion (ppb) (the "primary" plume). The
remainder of the plume (the "secondary" plume) is
delineated as the area in which TCE concentrations
exceed 5 ppb, the Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) for TCE in drinking water.
The contaminated soils in the area of the lagoons are
considered to be "principal threat wastes" because the
chemicals of concern are found at concentrations that pose
a significant risk. The excess carcinogenic risk to an
individual posed by these materials is upwards of one in
one hundred (1 x 10"2). In other words, if the contaminated
soil at the EIO Site is not remediated, as many as one out
of every 100 individuals exposed to the soil could develop
cancer as a result of that exposure. Although contaminated
ground water also poses a risk, it is
not considered a "principal threat"
as defined by EPA guidance.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE
ACTION
This action, referred to as
Operable Unit 2 (OU2), will be
the final action for the site. A
1996 ROD for Operable Unit 1
(OU1) provided for an alternate
water supply by connecting 50
homes to the public water
distribution system. The Remedial
Action Objectives for OU2 are to
prevent current and future
exposure to contaminated media through a combination of
treatment and containment of soil and ground water at the
EIO Site. Through the use of treatment technologies, this
response will permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility,
and volume of those source materials that constitute the
principal threat wastes at the site.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
As part of the RI/FS, EPA conducted a baseline risk
assessment to determine the current and future effects of
contaminants on human health and the environment.
According to the zoning board of Nameless, TN, the area
adjacent to the site is zoned for residential usage.
Therefore, this is the reasonably anticipated future land use
for the site itself. In addition, the potential future use of
ground water will be as a drinking water source for the
community once safe cleanup levels have been achieved.
Hence, the baseline risk assessment focused on health
effects for both children and adults, in a residential setting,
that could result from current and future direct contact
with: (1) contaminated soil (e.g., children ingesting soil
while playing in the area), and (2) contaminated ground
water (e.g., through ingestion and inhalation of volatile
contaminants). It is the lead agency's current judgment
that the Preferred Alternative identified in this Proposed
Plan, or one of the other active measures considered in the
Proposed Plan, is necessary to protect public health or
welfare or the environment from actual or threatened
releases of hazardous substances into the environment.
Human Health Risks
EPA's statistical analysis of soil sampling data indicates
that probable exposure concentrations of B[a]P, 4,4'-DDT, and
dieldrin in soil are 300 parts per million (ppm), 350 ppm, and
40 ppm, respectively. These concentrations are associated with
WHAT IS A "PRINCIPAL THREAT"?
The NCP establishes an expectation that EPA will use treatment to
address the principal threats posed by a site wherever practicable (NCP
Section 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(A)). The "principal threat" concept is applied
to the characterization of "source materials" at a Superfund site. A
source material is material that includes or contains hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants that act as a reservoir for
migration of contamination to ground water, surface water or air, or acts
as a source for direct exposure. Contaminated ground water generally
is not considered to be a source material; however, Non-Aqueous Phase
Liquids (NAPLs) in ground water may be viewed as source material.
Principal threat wastes are those source materials considered to be
highly toxic or highly mobile that generally cannot be reliably contained,
or would present a significant risk to human health or the environment
should exposure occur. The decision to treat these wastes is made on a
site-specific basis through a detailed analysis of the alternatives using
the nine remedy selection criteria This analysis provides a basis for
making a statutory finding that the remedy employs treatment as a
principal element.
A-3
-------
WHAT IS RISK AND HOW IS IT CALCULATED?
A Superfund human health risk assessment estimates the "baseline
risk." This is an estimate of the likelihood of health problems
occurring if no cleanup action were taken at a site. To estimate the
baseline risk at a Superfund site, EPA undertakes a four-step
process:
Stepl: Analyze Contamination
Step 2: Estimate Exposure
Step 3: Assess Potential Health Dangers
Step 4: Characterize Site Risk
In Step 1, EPA looks at the concentrations of contaminants found at
a site as well as past scientific studies on the effects these
contaminants have had on people (or animals, when human studies
are unavailable). Comparisons between site-specific concentrations
and concentrations reported in past studies helps EPA to determine
which contaminants are most likely to pose the greatest threat to
human health.
In Step 2, EPA considers the different ways that people might be
exposed to the contaminants identified in Step 1, the concentrations
that people might be exposed to, and the potential frequency and
duration of exposure. Using this information, EPA calculates a
"reasonable maximum exposure" (RME) scenario, which portrays
the highest level of human exposure that could reasonably be
expected to occur.
In Step 3, EPA uses the information from Step 2 combined with
information on the toxicity of each chemical to assess potential
health risks. EPA considers two types of risk: cancer risk and non-
cancer risk. The likelihood of any kind of cancer resulting from a
Superfund site is generally expressed as an upper bound
probability; for example, a "1 in 10,000 chance." In other words, for
every 10,000 people that could be exposed, one extra cancer may
occur as a result of exposure to site contaminants. An extra cancer
case means that one more person could get cancer than would
normally be expected to from all other causes. For non-cancer
health effects, EPA calculates a "hazard index." The key concept
here is that a "threshold level" (measured usually as a hazard index
of less than 1) exists below which non-cancer health effects are no
longer predicted.
In Step 4, EPA determines whether site risks are great enough to
cause health problems for people at or near the Superfund site. The
results of the three previous steps are combined, evaluated and
summarized. EPA adds up the potential risks from the individual
excess lifetime cancer risk levels due to ingestion of
contaminated soil of 1.2 x 10"2, 6.5 x 10"4, and 3.5 x 10"3,
respectively for current residents. Hazard quotients of 3.9
for 4,4'-DDT and 4.4 for dieldrin also are associated with
these exposure concentrations.
Similarly, EPA's statistical analysis of ground water
sampling data found that the average exposure
concentration of TCE in the ground water was 8,400 ppb,
which is in excess of the Safe Drinking Water Act MCL of
5 ppb. In addition, this concentration is associated with an
excess lifetime cancer risk of 2.5 x 10"3 for current
residents. Dieldrin, 4,4'-DDT and B[a]P were not found in
ground water at concentrations above their detection
limits.
These risks and hazard levels indicate that there is
significant potential risk to children and adults from direct
exposure to contaminated soil and ground water. These
risk estimates are based on current reasonable maximum
exposure scenarios and were developed by taking into
account various conservative assumptions about the
frequency and duration of an individual's exposure to the
soil and ground water, as well as the toxicity of B[a]P,
4,4'-DDT, dieldrin, and TCE.
Ecological Risks
A screening ecological risk assessment indicated that
the potential for significant ecological impacts to occur
was small. Based upon the relatively small size of the
contaminated source areas (i.e.. the soil that had been
under the lagoons) in comparison to the home ranges of
the target ecological receptor habitats and the lack of any
current natural habitat in these areas, there was little
potential for significant exposure of wildlife to the
contaminants. The concentrations of TCE found in the
XYZ River is below the freshwater screening level of 350
Mg/1 (ppb).
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the site
are to:
•	Restore the aquifer to drinking water standards within
a reasonable time frame.
•	Minimize future migration of ground-water
contamination.
•	Reduce or eliminate further contamination of ground
water.
•	Reduce or eliminate the direct contact threat
associated with contaminated soil.
•	Minimize or eliminate contaminant migration to the
ground water and surface waters to levels that ensure
the beneficial reuse of these resources.
This proposed action will reduce the excess cancer
risk associated with exposure to contaminated soil to one
in one million. This will be achieved by reducing the
concentrations of the soil contaminants to the following
target levels:
Benzo(a)pyrene	0.026 ppm
DDT	0.012 ppm
Dieldrin	0.54 ppm
A-4
-------
Because there are no Federal or State cleanup standards
for soil contamination, EPA established these targets, or
Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs), based on the
baseline risk assessment. Targets were selected that would
both reduce the risk associated with exposure to soil
contaminants to an acceptable level, and ensure minimal
migration of contaminants into the ground water. The
Preliminary Remediation Goal for TCE in ground water is
0.005 ppm, which is based on the Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Remedial alternatives for the EIO Site are presented
below. The alternatives are numbered to correspond with
the numbers in the RI/FS Report.
Common Elements. Many of these alternatives
include common components. The soil contains hazardous
waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and is therefore subject to the
RCRA land disposal restrictions (LDRs) if the waste is
excavated and treated or removed from the area of
contamination. All remedies involving such activities will
comply with the LDR (63 FR 28555; May 26, 1998) and
will meet 90% removal efficiency or ten times the
universal treatment standard for that contaminant in the
material prior to land disposal in a RCRA-compliant
landfill.
The ground water does not contain RCRA hazardous
waste and therefore the LDR standards are not applicable,
and are also not relevant or appropriate requirements.
Several of the remedies require institutional controls
(e.g., deed restrictions such as an easement or covenant)
to limit the use of portions of the property or to ensure
that the water is not used for drinking water purposes.
These resource use restrictions are discussed in each
alternative as appropriate. The type of restriction and
enforceability will need to be determined for the selected
remedy in the ROD. Consistent with expectations set out
in the Superfund regulations, none of the remedies rely
exclusively on institutional controls to achieve
protectiveness. Monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of
the remedy, including deed restrictions, are a component
of each alternative except the "no-action" alternative.
Each ground water alternative (except the "no action"
and the monitored natural attenuation alternatives)
requires extraction of ground water prior to treatment.
Additionally, each treatment alternative is evaluated
under two ground water disposal options: (1) discharge to
XYZ River, and (2) reinjection into the aquifer. All soil
and ground water alternatives, except the "no action"
alternatives, are expected to attain the Remedial Action
Objectives.
NO ACTION ALTERNA TIVES
Alternative Sl/Gl: NO ACTION
Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $0
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
EIO INDUSTRIAL SITE
Medium
RI/FS
Designation
Description
SOIL
S1
No action
S2
Cap waste in place; institutional controls; monitoring
S3
Excavate wastes; on-site thermal desorption; on-site disposal of residual
wastes with vegetative cover
S5
Excavate wastes; off-site thermal destruction; off-site disposal of residual
wastes
GROUND
WATER
G1
No action
G2
Pump and treat the entire plume; discharge to XYZ River
G3
Pump and treat the entire plume; vicinity reinjection
G5
Pump and treat the "primary" plume; discharge to XYZ River; natural
attenuation of "secondary" plume
G7
Pump and treat the "primary" plume; vicinity reinjection; natural
attenuation of "secondary" plume
G8
Monitored natural attenuation of the entire plume
-------
Estimated Construction Timeframe: None
Regulations governing the Superfund program
generally require that the "no action" alternative be
evaluated generally to establish a baseline for
comparison. Under this alternative, EPA would take no
action at the site to prevent exposure to the soil and
ground water contamination.
SOIL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative S2: CAPPING WASTE IN PLACE,
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS,
MONITORING.
Estimated Capital Cost: $3,500,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $3,500,000
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 9 months
Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: 9 months
Approximately 7,500 cubic yards of soil would be
capped in place with a RCRA hazardous waste
compliance cap. Institutional controls would be put in
place to prevent the use of the area for any purposes other
than waste management. This is necessary to ensure that
the cap is not impaired due to other activities. Since
direct contact exposure will not pose a risk with a cap,
restricting access to the capped area will not be required.
However, signs will be posted around the perimeter of the
area that provides notice that hazardous waste are
contained in the area. The area would be monitored in
perpetuity to verify that the cap retains integrity, is not
leaking, and that the institutional controls remained
effective.
Alternative S3: EXCAVATION, ON-SITE
THERMAL DESORPTION, AND
ON-SITE DISPOSAL OF
RESIDUALS.
Estimated Capital Cost: $6,230,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $6,230,000
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 3 months
Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: 24 months
Approximately 7,500 cubic yards of soil would be
excavated and would be treated by on-site thermal
desorption. The treated soil will be returned to the
excavated area and capped with a vegetative cover if the
material meets the final cleanup levels. If the technology
does not achieve the remedial cleanup level standards for
the waste left in place, the waste would be disposed of
off-site at a RCRA hazardous waste Subtitle C facility.
(Such material would meet the LDR standards prior to
disposal.) It is expected that thermal treatment will
achieve the health-based standards. The contaminants
collected from the thermal desorption process will be
sent off-site to a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste
facility for treatment and disposal in accordance with the
RCRA LDR standards.
Since this alternative will achieve Preliminary
Remediation Goals or better that are protective for
residential land use, and which are protective for all
other uses, institutional controls and monitoring will not
be needed for this alternative.
Alternative S5: EXCAVATION, OFF-SITE
THERMAL DESTRUCTION, AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF
RESIDUALS
Estimated Capital Cost: $6,731,317
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $ 0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $6,731,317
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 0
Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: 12 months
This alternative is the same as S3 except that the
waste is transported off-site to a RCRA hazardous waste
Subtitle C facility for the treatment and disposal of the
soil. For the purposes of developing a cost estimate, the
assumed treatment technology was an off-site
incinerator, but any technology that can achieve the
LDR treatment standards for contaminated soil could be
used during the actual implementation of the remedy.
GROUND WATER ALTERNATIVES
Alternative G2: PUMP AND TREAT THE ENTIRE
PLUME WITH DISCHARGE TO
THE XYZ RIVER
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 3,650,000
Estimated Annual O &M Cost: $ 124,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 4,779,000
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 15 to 18 months
Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: 15 years
Ground water extraction wells would be placed at
locations selected to capture the entire area of the
contaminated ground-water plume. Once extracted, the
contaminated ground water would be treated on site by
A-6
-------
using a combination of air-stripping and/or carbon
adsorption and would then be discharged to the XYZ
River. The ground water would be restored to drinking
water quality through treatment to meet the final cleanup
levels throughout the entire plume. Restrictions on the
installation of new drinking water wells will be
implemented by the town zoning authority. Existing
wells will be sealed to prevent exposure to contaminated
ground water.
During the remedial design phase, EPA will
determine the most cost-effective technology for treating
the extracted ground water. These technologies will
include either carbon adsorption or air stripping alone or
in combination to meet the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and State
and/or local air quality standards. Any carbon units used
for on-site treatment will be regenerated off-site. Used
carbon units will be disposed of in accordance with
RCRA requirements.
Alternative G3: PUMP AND TREAT THE ENTIRE
PLUME WITH VICINITY
REINJECTION
Estimated Capital Cost: $10,752,000
Estimated Annual 0& M Cost: $ 167,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 12,078,000
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 18 to 24 months
Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: 12 years
The components and requirements of this alternative
are the same as those described in Alternative G2, with
the exception that the treated ground water would be
reinjected into the aquifer rather than discharged to the
XYZ River. Reinjection wells would be located at
selected points to enhance flushing within the
contaminant plume.
Alternative G5: PUMP AND TREAT THE
PRIMARY PLUME WITH
DISCHARGE TO THE XYZ RIVER
AND MONITORED NATURAL
ATTENUATION OF THE
SECONDARY PLUME.
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 2,850,000
Estimated Annual 0& M Cost: $ 84,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 3,695,000
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 12 to 15 months
Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: 18 years
In this alternative, ground-water extraction wells
would be placed at locations selected to capture the
primary plume and the secondary plume would be
allowed to remediate through natural physical, chemical
and biological processes (also known as natural
attenuation). Isolation and cleanup of the primary plume
would prevent further contamination to the secondary
plume and expedite attainment of final cleanup levels in
the secondary plume through natural attenuation.
Ground water extracted from the primary plume would
be treated in the same manner as described in
Alternative G2. The ground water would be restored to
drinking water use through treatment and natural
attenuation to meet the final cleanup levels throughout
the entire plume.
Alternative G7: PUMP AND TREAT THE
PRIMARY PLUME WITH
VICINITY REINJECTION AND
MONITORED NATURAL
ATTENUATION OF THE
SECONDARY PLUME.
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 8,250,000
Estimated Annual 0& M Cost: $ 107,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 9,225,000
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 15 - 18 months
Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: 15 years
The components and requirements of this alternative are
the same as those described in Alternative G5, with the
exception that the treated ground water would be
reinjected into the aquifer rather than discharged to the
XYZ River. Reinjection wells would be located at
selected points to enhance flushing of contaminants
within the contaminant plume and facilitate natural
attenuation processes.
Alternative G8: MONITORED NATURAL
ATTENUATION OF ENTIRE
PLUME
Estimated Capital Cost: $ 15,000
Estimated Annual 0& M Cost: $ 34,000
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $ 501,000
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 3 months
Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: 220 years
This alternative would utilize natural physical, chemical
and biological processes (i.e., natural attenuation) to
restore ground water to drinking water use. Final
cleanup levels would be met throughout the entire plume
within an estimated timeframe of 220 years.
A-7
-------
EVALUATION CRITERIA FORSUPERFUND REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and the Environment determines whether an alternative eliminates,
reduces, or controls threats to public health and the environment through institutional controls, engineering controls,
or treatment.
Compliance with ARARs evaluates whether the alternative meets Federal and State environmental statutes,
regulations, and other requirements that pertain to the site, or whether a waiver is justified.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence considers the ability of an alternative to maintain protection of human
health and the environment overtime.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants through Treatment evaluates an alternative's use
of treatment to reduce the harmful effects of principal contaminants, their ability to move in the environment, and the
amount of contamination present.
Short-term Effectiveness considers the length of time needed to implement an alternative and the risks the
alternative poses to workers, residents, and the environment during implementation.
Implementability considers the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing the alternative, including
factors such as the relative availability of goods and services.
Cost includes estimated capital and annual operations and maintenance costs, as well as present worth cost.
Present worth cost is the total cost of an alternative over time in terms of today's dollar value. Cost estimates are
expected to be accurate within a range of +50 to -30 percent.
State/Support Agency Acceptance considers whether the State agrees with the EPA's analyses and
recommendations, as described in the RI/FS and Proposed Plan.
Community Acceptance considers whether the local community agrees with EPA's analyses and preferred
alternative. Comments received on the Proposed Plan are an important indicator of community acceptance.	
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Nine criteria are used to evaluate the different
remediation alternatives individually and against each
other in order to select a remedy. This section of the
Proposed Plan profiles the relative performance of each
alternative against the nine criteria, noting how it
compares to the other options under consideration. The
nine evaluation criteria are discussed below. The
"Detailed Analysis of Alternatives" can be found in the
FS.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
All of the alternatives except the "no action"
alternative would provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment by eliminating, reducing, or
controlling risk through treatment, engineering controls,
and/or institutional controls. Chemicals of concern are
treated to risk-based levels by Alternative S3 (on-site
thermal desorption) and Alternative S5 (off-site thermal
destruction). Alternative S2 would provide protection by
preventing direct contact exposure to contaminated soils
and prevent leakage of these contaminated source
materials to the ground water by capping the area;
however, long-term maintenance and monitoring would
be required to ensure that the cap remained protective.
With the exception of Alternative G8 (monitored
natural attentuation), all ground water alternatives would
eliminate human and environmental risks from direct
contact with contaminated ground water through
treatment. Although Alternative G8 does not prevent
migration of contaminants to the XYZ River, surface
water quality standards are not being exceeded and
therefore is still considered protective. Experience has
shown that in some cases reinjecting ground water
(Alternatives G3 and G7) may cause some horizontal or
downward migration of contaminants, increasing the
potential for exposure to contaminated ground water. At
this site, such contaminant migration is not likely to
occur due to the presence of a confining clay layer and
the site's proximity to the river. All alternatives include
institutional controls as an added means of protecting
human health.
Because the "no action" alternatives (SI and Gl) are
not protective of human health and the environment,
they were eliminated from consideration under the
remaining eight criteria.
2.	Compliance with ARARs
All soil and ground water alternatives would meet
their respective ARARs from Federal and State laws.
3.	Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative S3 (on-site thermal desorption) and
Alternative S5 (off-site thermal destruction) would
reduce the inherent hazards posed by the contaminants
at the site to health-based levels and further controls
A-8
-------
would not be necessary to ensure the long-term
effectiveness and permanence. Alternative S2 (capping)
would prevent the direct contact exposure and
contaminant migration, however, monitoring would be
necessary to ensure the long-term effectiveness and
permanence of this alternative.
All ground water alternatives would be effective in
the long term by reducing contaminant concentrations in
ground water. The adequacy and reliability of the pump
and treatment technologies have been well proven for the
chemicals of concern. However, experience has shown
that reinjection systems (G3, G7) have extensive
maintenance problems and as such may not be considered
reliable. Natural attenuation has some uncertainty
associated with the remediation methods and the time
required to reach the final cleanup levels (G5, G7, G8).
4.	Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of
Contaminants through Treatment
Both Alternative S3 (on-site thermal desorption, the
preferred alternative) and Alternative S5 (off-site,
thermal destruction) would remove or destroy the
contaminants from soil, and may in fact get the soil down
to the Preliminary Remediation Goals without further
need for subsequent containment. Alternative S2
(capping) will not achieve reduction of toxicity, mobility
or volume through treatment.
All ground water alternatives, except for G8, use
treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility and volume of
contaminants. Alternative G8 uses natural processes to
achieve the same goals. For all other alternatives,
carbon units containing treatment residuals would be
thermally destroyed or recycled, and managed in
accordance with RCRA.
5.	Short-term Effectiveness
Both Alternative S3 (on-site thermal desorption) and
Alternative S5 (off-site thermal destruction) involve
excavation of contaminated soils and thus present a
potential for short-term exposure. Alternative S5
presents a higher short-term risk than Alternative S3
because of the potential for exposure to contaminated
soils by trucking the 7,500 cubic yards of material to an
off-site facility.
The contaminants are not volatile so the risk of
release is principally limited to wind blown soil transport
or surface water run off. Control of dust and run-off will
limit the amount of materials that may migrate to a
potential receptor. Alternative S3 and Alternative S5 also
present a potential risk for short-term exposure to
releases of contaminants or products of combustion as a
result of the treatment technology. In both cases the
treatment unit will be required to meet the RCRA
emissions standards (i.e., RCRA Subpart X would apply
to thermal desorbption units and Subpart O would apply
to incineration units). Alternative S2 (capping) does not
present a short-term threat except to the extent that area
presents direct contact or migration potential during the
time it takes to fully implement the remedy.
Construction of Alternative S3 (on-site thermal
desorption) could be completed in 3 months, with
achievement of remedial action objectives within 2
years. Alternative S5 (off-site thermal destruction) will
not require construction, and would thus enable cleanup
objectives to be achieved in less than 2 years.
Completion of Alternative S2 (capping) would take 9
months to construct.
Precautions will be taken during construction of the
extraction wells under Alternatives G2, G3, G5 and G7
to eliminate any risk to the public from excavation.
Because ground water remediation will occur after
completion of soil remediation, air emissions during
well-drilling should not constitute a threat. Short-term
risk to workers associated with normal construction
hazards and potential contact with contaminated water
will be eliminated through appropriate controls and
adherence to proper health and safety protocols. G2,
G3, G5, and G7 will take approximately the same
amount of time to achieve final cleanup levels.
However, Alternative G3 would require a longer
construction period due to the installation of reinjection
wells or infiltration basins, and piping systems to
transport the treated ground water to the wells or basins.
Under Alternative G2, only a small amount of time is
needed to construct the pipeline to the XYZ River.
Alternative G8 has no risks associated with
implementation and requires little or no implementation
time.
6. Implementability
All soil technologies and remedies are readily
available and generally proven.
All ground water alternatives are equally
implementable without construction difficulties. Ground
water "pump and treat" is well-proven and fully capable
of removing the contamination. There is a potential for
operation and maintenance problems associated with
reinjecting the large volume of water into the aquifer,
under Alternatives G3 and G7. All alternatives have
few associated administrative difficulties.
-------
7.	Cost
The estimated present worth cost of Alternative S3
is less than that of Alternatives S5. The estimated
present worth cost of Alternative G5 is less than G2, G3,
and G7. Even though Alternative G8 is the least costly
of the remedial alternatives, the time frame required to
achieve final cleanup levels is excessive.
8.	State/Support Agency Acceptance
The State of Tennessee supports the Preferred
Alternative without comment.
9.	Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternative
will be evaluated after the public comment period ends
and will be described in the ROD for the site.
SUMMARY OF THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
The Preferred Alternative for cleaning up the EIO
Site is a combination of Soil Alternative S3 (Excavation,
On-Site Thermal Desorption, and On-Site Disposal of
Residuals) and Ground-Water Alternative G5 (Pump and
Treatment of the Primary Plume with Discharge to the
XYZ River and Monitored Natural Attenuation of the
Secondary Plume).
The preferred soil alternative was selected over other
alternatives because it is expected to achieve substantial
and long-term risk reduction through treatment, and is
expected to allow the property to be used for the
reasonably anticipated future land use, which is
residential. The preferred ground-water alternative was
selected over the other alternatives because it is expected
to achieve substantial risk reduction through treatment of
contaminants in the ground water and provides measures
to prevent future exposure to currently contaminated
ground water. Hence the combination of Alternatives S3
and G5, hereafter referred to as the Preferred Alternative,
reduces the risk within a reasonable time frame and at
less cost than the off-site treatment alternative and
provides for long-term reliability of the remedy.
Based on the information available at this time, EPA
and the State of Tennessee believe the Preferred
Alternative would be protective of human health and the
environment, would comply with ARARs, would be cost-
effective, and would utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. Because it would treat the source
materials constituting principal threats, the remedy also
would meet the statutory preference for the selection of
a remedy that involves treatment as a principal element.
The Preferred Alternative can change in response to
public comment or new information.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
EPA and TDEC provide information regarding the
cleanup of the EIO Industrial Site to the public through
public meetings, the Administrative Record file for the
site, and announcements published in the Nameless,
Tennessee Newspaper. EPA and the State encourage the
public to gain a more comprehensive understanding of
the site and the Superfund activities that have been
conducted at the site.
The dates for the public comment period , the date,
location, and time of the public meeting, and the
locations of the Administrative Record files, are
provided on the front page of this Proposed Plan.
For further information on the EIO Industrial Site,
please contact:


John Doe

Joan Nameless
Remedial Project

Community Relations
Manager

Coordinator
(000) 000-0000

(000) 000-0000

U.S.
EPA
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta
GA
30303-3104
A-10
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Specialized terms used in this Proposed Plan are defined below:
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) -
the Federal and State environmental laws that a selected remedy will
meet. These requirements may vary among sites and alternatives.
Bioremediation - the use of microorganisms to transform or alter,
through metabolic or enzymatic action, hazardous organic
contaminants into nonhazardous substances.
Carbon adsorption - a process using activated carbon to remove
primarily soluble organics from air and water. There are granular
and powdered activated carbon based on the size of the carbon
particles.
Consent Decree - a legal document, approved by a judge, that
formalizes an agreement between EPA and one or more potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) outlining the terms by which the
response action will take place. A Consent Decree is subject to a
public comment period prior to its approval by a judge, and is
enforceable as a final judgement by a court.
Contaminant plume - a column of contamination with measurable
horizontal and vertical dimensions that is suspended in and moves
with ground water.
Ex situ - the removal of a medium (for example, water or soil) from
its original place, as through excavation, in order to perform the
remedial action
Ground water - underground water that fill pores in soils or
openings in rocks to the point of saturation. Ground water is often
used as a source of drinking water via municipal or domestic wells.
LDR - Land Disposal Restriction. The land disposal restrictions
program requires certain wastes to be treated before they may be
disposed of in the land.
Monitoring - ongoing collection of information about the
environment that helps gauge the effectiveness of a clean-up action.
Monitoring wells drilled at different levels at the EIO Site would be
used to detect any leaks from containment structures.
Organic compounds - carbon compounds, such as solvents, oils,
and pesticides. Most are not readily dissolved in water. Some
organic compounds can cause cancer.
Present Worth Analysis - a method of evaluation of expenditures
that occur over different time periods. By discounting all costs to a
common base year, the costs for different remedial action
alternatives can be compared on the basis of a single figure for each
alternative. When calculating present worth cost for Superfund
sites, total operations & maintenance costs are to be included.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - the Federal act
that established a regulatory system to track hazardous wastes from
the time they are generated to their final disposal. RCRA also
provides for safe hazardous waste management practices and
imposes standards for transporting, treating, storing, and disposing
of hazardous waste.
Revegetate - to replace topsoil, seed, and mulch on prepared soil to
prevent wind and water erosion.
Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level (SDWA
MCL) - the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water
that is delivered to any user of a public water system.
Treatability Variance - where a remedial alternative cannot achieve
a LDR treatment standard, treatability variance may be granted. A
treatability variance establishes alternate treatment standards.
A-11
-------
USE THIS SPACE TO WRITE YOUR COMMENTS
Your input on the Proposed Plan for the EIO Industrial Site is important to EPA. Comments provided by the public are
valuable in helping EPA select a final cleanup remedy for the site.
You may use the space below to write your comments, then fold and mail. Comments must be postmarked by March 30,
1999. If you have any questions about the comment period, please contact Joan Nameless at (000) 000-0000 or through
EPA's toll-free number at 1-800-000-0000. Those with electronic communications capabilities may submit their comments
to EPA via Internet at the following e-mail address: nameless.joan@epa.gov.
Name	
Address	
City	
State	 Zip
A-12
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
APPENDIX B:
DOCUMENTING SPECIAL GROUND-WATER REMEDY DECISIONS
This section presents recommendations and sug-
gested language for remedy selection decision docu-
ments when ground-water remedies involve the fol-
lowing situations:
•	Use of a phased approach to ground-water
restoration.
•	Remediation of sites where non-aqueous phase
liquids (NAPLs) are present (or highly sus-
pected) in the subsurface.
•	Deferral of ex-situ treatment components of
a pump and treat remedy until Remedial De-
sign.
•	Remedies using monitored natural attenuation
to achieve remediation objectives.
General background information, examples of how
the situations named above should be documented, and
references to additional information are detailed be-
low.
B.1 PHASED APPROACH
Where complex ground-water contamination prob-
lems are present at a site (e.g., complex hydrogeology
or non-aqueous phase liquids), it will generally be nec-
essary to implement a phased approach toward the
cleanup of that site. In a phased remedy, site response
activities are implemented in a sequence of steps so that
the information gained in earlier phases can be used to
refine subsequent investigation objectives or actions.
Ground-water response actions, in particular those us-
ing extraction and treatment, should generally be imple-
mented in more than one phase. Phased response ac-
tions can be implemented by either two separate ac-
tions where an early or interim ground-water remedy is
followed by a later, more comprehensive, long-term
remedy (i.e. using separate decision documents), or one
action that is implemented in more than one phase (in
one decision document).
The following information should be included in
the Selected Remedy section of a ROD (and Preferred Al-
ternative section of the Proposed Plan when phased
implementation of a remedy is planned):
•	Ultimate remedial action objectives for con-
taminated ground water at the site.
•	Clear identification of the purpose and scope
of each phase and the interrelationships be-
tween the phases.
•	Estimated time period for operation and moni-
toring of each phase.
•	Explanation of how performance data from
an earlier phase will be used to refine scope or
design of later phases.
•	Explanation that the last phase of the remedy
will consist of refinement of the remedy to
increase remedy performance during the op-
erating life of the remedy. Such refinements
are relatively minor modifications that would
not be considered significant changes (e.g., op-
timizing pumping rates or placement/abandon-
ment of ground-water extraction wells).
Where appropriate, this section should also state
that performance data from an early phase of the rem-
edy may show that attainment of the ultimate
remediation objectives is not technically practicable,
which would result in re-evaluation of the Selected Rem-
edy and preclude implementation of later remedy
phases.
Highlight B-l illustrates how a phased approach
for a single action is described in the Selected Remedy sec-
tion of a ROD.
B-1
-------
Appendix B: Documenting Special Ground-Water Remedy Decisions
Highlight B-1: Example Language for Documenting Use of Phased Implementation
for the Extraction Component of a Remedy at a DNAPL Site in the Selected
Remedy Section of a ROD
The ultimate objectives for the ground-water portion of this remedial action is to restore Aquifer A to its beneficial
uses to the maximum extent practicable. The beneficial use of Aquifer A is as a source of drinking water and is
currently used off-site for this purpose. Based on information obtained during the remedial investigation and a
careful analysis of all remedial alternatives, EPA and the State believe that the Selected Remedy will achieve this
objective in a reasonable time frame.
The extraction portion of the ground-water remedy will be implemented in two phases. During phase one, a
sufficient number of extraction wells will be installed and operated to achieve the following remedial objectives:
1) minimize further migration of contaminants from suspected subsurface DNAPL areas to the surrounding
ground water; and 2) minimize further migration of the leading edge of the contaminant plume. After construction
of phase one is complete, the extraction system will be monitored on a regular basis and its performance
evaluated. Operation and monitoring of phase one may be necessary for a period of up to two years to provide
enough information to complete the phase two design.
Evaluation of the monitoring data collected during phase one may provide further information concerning the
likelihood that DNAPLs are present in the aquifer, and if so, the likely extent of the DNAPL zone. EPA will use this
information to determine whether an ARAR-waiver is appropriate for the suspected DNAPL zone. If EPA deter-
mines that attaining cleanup levels is "technically impracticable from an engineering perspective," these cleanup
levels would be waived over the suspected DNAPL zone (a Tl waiver). If EPA determines that a Tl waiver is
appropriate for this site, the selected remedy will be re-evaluated. In this event EPA would issue a ROD Amend-
ment and phase two of the remedy may be modified from that described below.
During phase two of this remedy, additional extraction wells will be installed with the objective of restoring Aquifer
A as a viable source of drinking water to the maximum extent practicable. Reinjection wells and related pumping
equipment for flushing a portion of the treated ground water through the aquifer (water flooding) will be installed
to enhance the recovery of contaminants. Restoration is defined as attainment of required cleanup levels in the
aquifer, over the full extent of the contaminant plume. Cleanup levels for each ground-water contaminant of
concern are specified in Table	.
Current estimates indicate that cleanup levels can be attained in the portion of Aquifer A outside the suspected
DNAPL zone within a time frame of approximately 25 years. Monitoring and evaluation of the performance of
phase one will be used to determine the actual number and placement of wells for phase two. The system's
performance will be carefully monitored, in accordance with the monitoring plan defined in Section	of the
ROD, and adjusted and refined as warranted by the performance data collected during operation.
Once phase two of the remedy has been implemented, some refinement to the extraction component of the
remedy may still be needed to enhance remedy performance or to maintain performance at reduced cost. These
minor adjustments could include one or more of the following:
•	Adjusting the rate of extraction from some or all wells.
•	Discontinuing pumping at individual wells where cleanup levels have been attained.
•	Pulsed pumping of some or all extraction wells to eliminate flow stagnation areas, allow sorbed contami-
nants to partition into ground water, or otherwise facilitate recovery of contaminants from the aquifer.
•	Installing additional ground-water extraction wells to facilitate or accelerate cleanup of the contaminant
plume.
For the purpose of estimating the approximate cost of the treatment component of the Selected Remedy, it is
estimated that three to five extraction wells will need to be installed as part of phase one and an additional two to
six extraction wells and two to four reinjection wells will need to be installed as part of phase two.
NOTE: Ex-situ treatment component of remedy and discharge of treated water are discussed in subsequent
paragraphs of the Selected Remedy section of the ROD (See Highlight B-2).
B-2
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
B.2 NONAQUEOUS PHASE LIQUIDS
(NAPLS)
Nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) are either sin-
gular free product organic compounds or mixtures of
organic compounds that are resistant to mixing with
water. There are two types of NAPLs, Light Non-
aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPLs) and Dense Nonaque-
ous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs). LNAPLs are less dense
than water and tend to float on the water table (e.g.,
gasoline). DNAPLs have a density greater than water.
This property allows them to sink through the water
table and penetrate the deeper portions of an aquifer,
making them difficult to locate and remediate. Ex-
amples of DNAPLs include some chlorinated solvents
(e.g., TCE), coal tar wastes, creosote based wood-treat-
ing oils, and some pesticides. NAPL zones are the de-
lineated portions of the subsurface (including one or
more aquifers) where immiscible liquids (free-phase or
residual NAPL) are present.
In general, restoration of an aquifer contaminated
with DNAPLs to ARARs or risk-based cleanup levels
in a reasonable time frame will not be attainable in the
DNAPL zone unless the DNAPLs can be removed.
Removing DNAPLs from the subsurface is often not
practicable. Due to the inherent difficulty in the treat-
ment of DNAPLs, Technical Impracticability (IT) Waiv-
ers are often appropriate for areas of an aquifer associ-
ated with DNAPLs (the DNAPL zone). That portion
of the contamination plume outside of the DNAPL
zone can often be restored to beneficial uses. Different
remediation objectives should be developed for the
DNAPL zone and for the portion of the aquifer out-
side of the DNAPL zone.
Highlight B-l also presents example language for
the Selected Remedy section of a ROD for a DNAPL site
where the remedy is to be implemented in phases. Please
refer to Chapter 9 for details on the sections of the
Proposed Plan and ROD that will be impacted by use
of a TI waiver.
B.3 DEFERRAL TO THE DESIGN
PHASE - SELECTION OF EX-SITU
TREATMENT METHODS
Although the technologies employed for treating
extracted ground water are important components of
a remedy, they have little influence on reducing con-
taminant levels in the aquifer or minimizing plume mi-
gration. Presumptive technologies for the ex-situ treat-
ment component of a pump and treat remedy are iden-
tified in Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treat-
ment Technologies for Contaminated Ground Water at
CERCLA Sites (EPA 540-R-96-023, October 1996). A
given treatment train could include a combination of
one or more of the presumptive technologies for treat-
ment of dissolved contaminants as well as other tech-
nologies for other purposes (e.g., separation of solids
or treatment of vapor phase contaminants).
Presumptive technologies for ex-situ treatment of
dissolved organic contaminants (e.g., volatiles,
semivolatiles) are:
•	Air stripping
•	Granular activated carbon (GAC)
•	Chemical/UV oxidation (for cyanides also)
•	Aerobic biological reactors
Presumptive technologies for ex-situ treatment of
dissolved metals are:
•	Chemical precipitation
•	Ion exchange/adsorption
•	Electrochemical methods (when metals are the
only dissolved contaminants)
•	Aeration of background metals
At the ROD stage, the lead agency often lacks
important site information needed for optimizing the
selection of technologies to treat extracted ground wa-
ter. In such cases it may be appropriate to defer final
selection among ex-situ treatment technologies to the
remedial design phase, when the needed information
will be available. The technologies that may ultimately
be selected and the timing and criteria for the future
technology selection should be described in sufficient
detail in the Proposed Plan so that the public can evalu-
ate and comment on the proposal. The Proposed Plan
provides the foundation for the ROD to defer the final
technology selection to the remedial design phase.
The following information should be provided in
the Selected Remedy section of the ROD (and the Preferred
Alternative section of the Proposed Plan):
B-3
-------
Appendix B: Documenting Special Ground-Water Remedy Decisions
•	Statement that one or more of the presump-
tive treatment technologies described in Pre-
sumptive 'Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treatment
Technologies for Contaminated Ground Water at
CERCLA Sites will be used.
•	Statement that the actual technologies and se-
quence in which they will be employed is being
deferred until the remedial design stage, when
additional information will be available.
•	Description of what the treatment system will
be designed to accomplish (e.g., attain State re-
quirements for discharge to surface water).
•	Reference the presumptive remedy guidance
cited above for a description of presumptive
technologies and their advantages and limita-
tions.
•	Assumed treatment sequence and statement that
this will be used only as a basis for estimating
remedy costs (in this case, for the aqueous and
vapor phase contaminants in ground water).
Highlight B-2 provides example Selected Remedy
language for a case where selection of a specific pre-
sumptive technology for treatment of extracted ground
water was deferred until the Remedial Design phase.
B.4 DOCUMENTING REMEDIES USING
MONITORED NATURAL
ATTENUATION
Monitored natural attenuation (MNA) may be uti-
lized as a remedy or as a portion of a remedy, to ad-
dress site contamination. Guidance on the use of moni-
tored natural attenuation for the remediation of con-
taminated soil and ground water can be found in Use of
Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Correc-
tive Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites (EPA 540-
F-99-009, April 1999).
Monitored natural attenuation, as defined in the
OSWER Directive, "refers to the reliance on natural
attenuation processes (within the context of a carefully
controlled and monitored site cleanup approach) to
achieve site-specific remediation objectives within a time
frame that is reasonable compared to that offered by
other more active methods. The 'natural attenuation
processes' that are at work in such a remediation ap-
proach include a variety of physical, chemical, or bio-
logical processes that, under favorable conditions, act
without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxic-
ity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants
in soil or ground water."1
EPA does not view MNA to be a "no action" rem-
edy2, but rather considers it to be a means of address-
ing contamination under a limited set of site circum-
stances where its use meets the applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements. Also, MNA should be evalu-
ated and compared to other viable remediation meth-
ods (including innovative technologies) during the study
phases leading to the selection of a remedy and should
not be considered a "presumptive" or "default"
remediation alternative. The decision to implement
MNA should include a comprehensive site character-
ization, risk assessment where appropriate, and mea-
sures to treat or otherwise control sources. In addition,
the progress of natural attenuation towards a site's
remediation objectives should be carefully monitored
and compared with expectations to ensure that it will
meet site remediation objectives within a time frame
that is reasonable compared to time frames associated
with other methods. Where MNA's ability to meet these
expectations is uncertain and based predominantly on
predictive analyses, decision-makers should incorporate
contingency measures into the remedy.
If monitored natural attenuation comprises all or
part of the remedy, the following points should be in-
cluded in the Summary of Alternatives section of a Pro-
posed Plan or the Description of Alternatives section of a
ROD:
• A brief explanation of why natural processes
are expected to achieve remedial objectives in
a time frame that is reasonable in comparison
to other alternatives.
1	Natural attenuation processes can also convert some con-
taminants to more toxic forms.
2	A remedial alternative using natural attenuation as the cleanup
method is not the same as the "no action alternative." When cleanup
is required, natural attenuation may be able to attain cleanup levels
in a timeframe that is "reasonable" when compared to other compa-
rable alternatives. In general, the "no action" alternative is appro-
priate only when cleanup is not required.
B-4
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
Highlight B-2: Example Language for Selected Remedy Section of a ROD Deferring
Selection of Treatment Component
The ex-situ treatment component of the ground-water remedy will utilize presumptive technologies identified in
Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Ground Water at CERCLA
Sites (EPA 540-R-96-023, October 1996), included as Appendix	of the ROD. Since contaminants of concern
include volatile and semivolatile organic compounds, one or more of the presumptive technologies - air stripping,
granular activated carbon (GAC), chemical/UV oxidation and aerobic biological reactors - will be used for treating
aqueous contaminants in the extracted ground water. Other technologies will also be needed in the treatment
system for removal of suspended mineral solids and treatment of vapor phase contaminants. The actual
technologies and sequence of technologies used for the treatment system will be determined during the reme-
dial design. Final selection of these technologies will be based on additional site information to be collected
during the remedial design. (See Section 3.4 and Appendix C3 of EPA 540-R-96-023 for a discussion of site
information needed for selection and design of the ex-situ treatment system.) Based on this additional informa-
tion and sound engineering practice the treatment system shall be designed to accomplish the following:
•	Attain the chemical-specific treatment levels specified in the State NPDES permit (see Table	) and other
performance criteria specified in Table	of the ROD.
•	Treat, or be easily modified to treat, the expected flow increase from phase one to phase two of the extraction
system.
Other design factors shall include the following:
•	Maximizing long-term effectiveness.
•	Maximizing long-term reliability (i.e., minimize the likelihood of process upsets).
•	Minimizing long-term operating costs.
Additional information concerning presumptive technologies for the ex-situ treatment component of the remedy is
provided in EPA 540-R-96-023. In this directive, descriptions of each of the presumptive technologies are pre-
sented in Appendices D1 through D8, and advantages and limitations of each of these technologies are listed in
Appendix C4.
For the purpose of estimating the approximate cost of the treatment component of the Selected Remedy, the
following treatment sequence is assumed for contaminants dissolved in ground water: flow equalization tanks,
a gravity oil-water separator, an air stripper, followed by GAC units. GAC will also be used to treat vapor phase
contaminants from the air stripper. The GAC units will be thermally reactivated at an off-site facility. Separated
DNAPL compounds will be recycled if possible, but since the actual composition of the recovered liquids is
unknown, costs for incineration at an off-site facility were used for the cost estimate.
B-5
-------
Appendix B: Documenting Special Ground-Water Remedy Decisions
•	If a relatively long time frame is required for
natural processes to attain remediation goals,
explain why this remediation time period is
appropriate for conditions at the site (e.g., no
anticipated need for site ground water during
this period).
•	A description of the performance monitoring
that will be part of the remedy and will be
used to determine if natural attenuation is pro-
ceeding as anticipated.
•	If applicable, a description of the contingency
measures that will be implemented should the
monitoring show that natural attenuation is
unable to achieve the cleanup goals. Condi-
tions that would trigger the contingency should
also be specified (e.g., continued plume migra-
tion or contaminant levels are well above levels
predicted for a specified time)
•	Describe the institutional controls that will be
implemented to prevent use of contaminated
ground water until cleanup levels are achieved.
Example language for documenting use of moni-
tored natural attenuation in the Selected Remedy section
of the ROD is provided in Highlight B-3.
B.5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR
SPECIAL GROUND-WATER
REMEDIES
Additional guidance can be found in Sections 9.4
and 9.5 of this document and in the following:
•	Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treat-
ment Technologies for Contaminated Ground Water at
CERCLA Sites, Final Guidance (EPA 540-R-96-
023, October 1996) (Note: Highlights B-l and
B-2 in this Appendix were adapted from Ap-
pendix B of this guidance document.)
•	Considerations in Ground-Water Remediation of
Superfund Sites and RCRA Facilities (OSWER
9283.1-06, May 1992).
Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticabil-
ity of Ground-Water Restoration (EPA 540-R-93-
080, October 1993).
Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund,
RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage
Tank Sites (EPA 540-F-99-009, April 1999)
B-6
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
Highlight B-3: Example Language for Documenting Use of Monitored Natural
Attenuation in the Selected Remedy Section of the ROD
The ultimate objective for the ground-water portion of this remedial action is to restore contaminated ground
water in Aquifer A to its beneficial uses. This aquifer could be used as a future source of drinking water, but is not
being used currently for this purpose either on-site or off-site. Based on information obtained during the remedial
investigation and a careful analysis of all remedial alternatives, EPA and the State believe that the Selected
Remedy will achieve this objective in a reasonable time frame.
Monitored natural attenuation (Alternative 4) will be used to restore Aquifer A to its future beneficial use as a
source of drinking water. Cleanup levels for each ground-water chemical of concern (COC) are specified in Table
	. Current estimates indicate that cleanup levels will be attained throughout the contaminated portion of
Aquifer A within approximately 25 years. This compares to an estimated time frame of ten years for those
alternatives that involve pumping and treating of ground water (Alternatives 2 and 3). (See Appendix	of the Rl/
FS for further information concerning the predictive models used for this estimate.) Although the estimated time
for natural processes to attain remediation objectives is longer than that required for alternatives using pump and
treat, twenty-five years is considered a reasonable remedial time for this site because there is no anticipated
need for the contaminated ground water within this period (see Current and Potential Future Site Use section of
the ROD).
In addition to the modeling estimates, concentration levels for all COCs have decreased since source control
measures were completed (OU1). This trend of declining contaminant levels has been confirmed in four succes-
sive rounds of sampling over a period of three years, indicating that source control measures have been effective
and are reducing the uncertainty of the modeling predictions.
Since two separate lines of evidence (trends of declining COCs and predictive modeling) were used to indicate
that monitored natural attenuation would be successful in attaining remediation objectives for site ground water,
EPA and the State have determined that contingency measures are not needed as part of the remedy selected in
this ROD.
Actual performance of the natural attenuation remedy will be carefully monitored in accordance with the monitor-
ing plan detailed in Section	of the ROD. If monitoring data indicate that contaminant levels do not continue to
decline, as estimated in the modeling predictions, EPA and the State will reconsider the remedy decision. One
or more of the following observations could lead to re-consideration of the remedy, if confirmed by four or more
rounds of sampling:
•	Increase in levels of parent contaminants, indicating that other sources may be present.
•	Concentration levels of parent contaminants and/or daughter products differ significantly from modeling pre-
dictions.
•	Contaminant plume for parent contaminants and daughter products increases significantly in areal or vertical
extent and/or volume from that predicted by modeling estimates.
Institutional controls will be implemented to prevent the use of contaminated ground water until the cleanup
levels specified in Table	have been attained throughout Aquifer A. These institutional controls will consist of
a county ordinance prohibiting drilling of wells within the vicinity of the plume. An ordinance is expected to be
effective in preventing ground-water use, because the county requires that a permit be obtained prior to drilling a
public or private water supply well and no permit can be issued in areas known to be contaminated.
B-7
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
APPENDIX C
CONSULTATION PROCEDURES FOR SUPERFUND RESPONSE
DECISIONS
Consolidated Guide to Consultation Procedures for Superfund Response Decisions
Fact Sheet with transmittal memorandum dated May 14,1997
-------


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
S	WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
\PR<^°
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Signed May 14, 1997
OSWER Directive 9200.1-18FS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Transmittal of "Consolidated Guide to Consultation
Procedures for Superfund Response Decisions" and FY97
Focus Areas for OERR regional coordination support
FROM:	Stephen D. Luftig, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
TO:	Director, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration
Region I
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, IX
Director, Waste Management Division
Region IV
Director, Superfund Division
Regions V, VI, VII
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Ecosystems
Protection and Remediation
Region VIII
Director, Environmental Cleanup Office
Region X
This memorandum: 1) transmits a completed fact sheet
entitled "Consolidated Guide to Consultation Procedures for
Superfund Response Decisions,-" and 2) communicates the FY97 Focus
Areas for OERR Regional coordination support.
Consolidated Guide to Consultation Procedures for Superfund
Response Decisions
The goal of this fact sheet is to describe management review
-------
procedures employed by EPA to ensure that national remedy
selection policies and procedures are being implemented in a
reasonable and appropriately consistent manner. EPA believes
that consistent application of national policy and guidance is an
important means by which we ensure the reasonableness,
predictability, and cost-effectiveness of Superfund decisions.
This document has been developed as a result of the National
Consistency directive (OSWER Directive 9200.0-21) and the Remedy
Selection "Rules of Thumb" Superfund Reform efforts announced by
Administrator Carol Browner in October 1995.
This fact sheet provides a consolidated guide to EPA
Headquarters and Regional consultation procedures for response
decisions management. Pursuant to the final report of the
Superfund Delegations Workgroup (OSWER Directive 9242.2-10), the
Remedy Delegation Report was eliminated in favor of managing
necessary Headquarters consultations through individual OSWER
directives (this report had been used in the past to manage
consultation requirements and procedures for Superfund remedy
selection decisions). This fact sheet was developed to clarify
and consolidate the various consultation procedures that have
been established for both remedial and removal response selection
decision making through various OSWER Directives, memoranda, and
recommendations of national policy workgroups.
FY97 Focus Areas
As part of our effort to ensure appropriate national
consistency, last year OERR established four technical and policy
focus areas for Headquarters regional coordination efforts. The
four focus areas include: l)risk management and cost-
effectiveness decision documentation; 2)ground water policy;
3)lead policy; and 4) presumptive remedies. (See "Focus Areas
for Headquarters OERR Support for Regional Decision Making,"
OSWER Directive 9200.1-17, May 22, 1996.)
In FY97, OERR plans to continue to use the focus areas and
consultation procedures outlined in this May 1996 memorandum, and
refined through your work with individual Regional Center
management and staff over the course of the past year. The
primary goal of OERR's regional coordination effort is to
communicate and coordinate nationally on cross-cutting issues to
ensure that we all share a common understanding of program
policies and, as a result, approach site cleanups in a consistent
manner. OERR staff will flag any inconsistencies with respect to
focus area policies and will work with Regional staff on an
informal basis to resolve these issues in a timely manner. At
C-2
-------
the same time, Regional staff should look upon OERR staff as a
resource that can provide assistance in working through issues as
early as possible during the development of site response
strategies and draft Proposed Plans.
Thank you for your assistance in recent efforts to promote
appropriate national consistency. Please continue to contact my
staff as early as possible in the response selection process as
relevant issues arise.
Attachment
cc: Larry Reed, OERR
Elaine Davies, OERR
OERR Regional Accelerated Response Center Directors
David Evans, OERR
Suzanne Wells, OERR
OERR Senior Process Managers
Jim Woolford, FFRRO
Liz Cotsworth, OSW
Barry Breen, OSRE
Craig Hooks, FFEO
C-3
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
OSWER 9200.1-18FS
EPA540-F-97-009
PB97-963216
May 1997
oEPA Consolidated Guide to
Consultation Procedures for
Superfund Response
Decisions
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response	Quick Reference Fact Sheet
The goal of this fact sheet is to describe management review procedures employed by EPA to ensure that national
remedy selection policies and procedures are being implemented in a reasonable and appropriately consistent manner.
EPA believes that consistent application of national policy and guidance is an important means by which we ensure the
reasonableness, predictability, and cost-effectiveness of Superfund decisions. This document has been developed as
a result of the National Consistency directive (OSWER Directive 9200.0-21) and the Remedy Selection "Rules of
Thumb" Superfund Reform efforts announced by Administrator Carol Browner in October 1995.
This fact sheet provides a consolidated guide to EPA Headquarters and Regional consultation procedures for response
decisions management. This document was developed to clarify and consolidate the various consultation procedures
that have been established for both remedial and removal response selection decision making through various OSWER
Directives, memoranda, and recommendations of national policy workgroups.
NOTE: This fact sheet only highlights the review and/or consultation procedures that exist between EPA headquarters
and EPA Regional offices for Superfund response selection decision-making. Every response decision goes through
a rigorous technical and management review process within each Regional EPA office as well. The specific
management review procedures are unique to each Region, and have evolved over time to reflect the best technical and
program management expertise as well as the different organizational structures in each office.
^OCU^RE^EVIEW^
In May 1996, the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR) issued a directive
describing the goal of promoting "appropriately
consistent CERCLA program implementation. . . and
effective communication between Headquarters and the
Regions" with a focus on four technical and policy
areas. (Focus Areas for Headquarters OERR Support
for Regional Decision Making, OSWER Directive
9200.1-17, May 22, 1996).
The four focus areas include: risk management and
cost-effectiveness decision documentation; ground
water policy; lead (Pb) policy; and presumptive
remedies.
The consultation procedures outlined in the
memorandum involve the review of draft proposed
plans by staff in OERR's Accelerated Response
Centers. In some circumstances, OERR may request
the review of draft decision documents such as
Records of Decision (RODs), ROD amendments,
Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs), or
Action Memoranda for non-time-critical removal
C-4
-------
actions. Consultations are still required for non-time-
critical removal actions costing over $5 million (see
SACM Regional Decision Teams and Early Action and
Long-Term Action Under SACM, OSWER Directive
9203.1-051, December 1992). Headquarters staff will
flag any inconsistencies with respect to focus area
policies and will work with Regional staff, on an
informal basis, to resolve these issues in a timely
manner. Issues of a national precedent-setting nature
may be discussed with management as well.
At the same time, this memorandum encourages
Regional staff to look upon Headquarters staff as a
resource that can provide assistance in working through
issues as early as possible during the development of
site response strategies and draft proposed plans. The
specific elements within each focus area are
summarized in Table 1 and discussed in more detail in
the May 1996 Focus Area memorandum.
HEADQUARTERS
APPROVAL/CONCURRENCE ON
REMOVAL ACTIONS
The Superfund statute established certain limitations
on the use of removal actions. Some of the approval
authority for exceeding these statutory limitations has
been delegated to EPA Regional offices, and some
approval authority remains at Headquarters. Table 2
lists the specific elements of the Headquarters
approval/concurrence consultation process for removal
actions.
CROSS-REGIONAL RESPONSE
DECISIONS MANAGEMENT GROUPS
Cross-regional response decisions management
groups have also been formed to share critical site
information and improve remedy selection decision
making. (See Table 3). Sharing draft proposed plans,
decision documents, or other site-specific response
strategies with these review groups as early as possible
in the remedy selection process, will help facilitate a
quick and efficient review.
The National Remedy Review Board was formed to
promote cost-effectiveness and national consistency in
remedy selection at Superfund sites. The Board is
staffed with technical experts and senior managers
from each EPA Region and several EPA Headquarters
offices and focuses its reviews on high cost remedies.
(National Remedy Review Board Progress Report:
Fiscal Year 1996, OSWER Directive 9220.0-24,
January 1997; and National Remedy Review Board
Review Criteria for Federal Facility Superfund Sites,
OSWER Directive 9220.0-25, draft).
Lead is one of the most frequently encountered
chemicals at Superfund sites. Lead cleanups are also
some of the most costly cleanups. As a result, a Lead
Sites Management Workgroup has been formed by the
Superfund Waste Management Division Directors in
order to have management level involvement in key
lead site decisions across the nation. Criteria will be
developed in the near future and will provide proposed
action levels and/or risk management alternatives that
trigger a review by this group. (Per direction of
Superfund Waste Management Division Directors'
Lead Policy Forum on February 6, 1997.)
CROSS-REGIONAL TECHNICAL
REVIEW WORKGROUPS
Finally, cross-regional technical review workgroups
have also been formed to focus on technical issues
underlying risk assessment and response management
issues. (See Table 4).
In order to support site-specific lead risk
assessments and assist in the development of national
lead policy for Superfund, the Technical Review
Workgroup for lead was established. This group of
scientists and technical experts is familiar with the
development and refinement of the Integrated Exposure
Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children
(IEUBK) and provides advice on questions relating to
site-specific lead risk assessments. OERR has asked
Regional offices to identify any application of the
IEUBK model that is expected to be challenged or will
set a precedent in IEUBK model application so that the
Technical Review Workgroup can be informed of the
issues and provided an opportunity to comment on the
approach undertaken. (Revised Interim Soil Lead
Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective
Action Facilities, OSWER Directive 9355.4-12, July
14, 1994; and Administrative Reforms for Lead Risk
Assessment, OSWER Directive 9200.4-20, April 17,
1996).
For sites where EPA is developing dioxin soil
cleanup levels, OERR asks the Regions to consult with
Headquarters and the Superfund Dioxin Workgroup as
early as possible in the remedy selection process. This
consultation process is needed to ensure a consistent
transition in implementing the results of the Agency
Dioxin Reassessment. (Headquarters Consultation for
Dioxin Sites, OSWER Directive 9200.4-19, December
13, 1996).
C-5
-------
POINTS OF CONTACT
OERR Focus Area Reviews: Contact staff in individual
OERR Regional Accelerated Response Centers.
Removal Program Concurrences: Contact staff in
individual OERR Regional Accelerated Response
Centers.
National Remedy Review Board: Regional Remedy
Review Board members or Bruce Means (OERR) at
703-603-8815.
Lead Sites Management Workgroup: Nick Ceto
(Region 10) at 206-553-1816 or Shahid Mahmud
(OERR) at 703-603-8789.
Lead Technical Review Workgroup: Pat Van Leeuwen
(Region 5) at 312-886-4904, Paul White (Office of
Research and Development) at 202-260-2589, or Larry
Zaragoza (OERR) at 703-603-8867.
Dioxin Review Workgroup: Marlene Berg (OERR) at
703-603-8701, Elmer Akin (Region 4) at 404-562-
8634, or Dwain Winters (Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances) at 202-260-8558.
EPA employees can obtain copies of OSWER directives cited in this guide by calling
the Superfund Document Center at (703) 603-9232 or sending an e-mail to:
"superfund.documentcenter@epamail.epa.gov"
C-6
-------

1
2
3
TABLE 1
R
E
O
E

OERR FOCUS AREA REVIEWS
A
A

G
R

Levels of Management Review
I
R

1. Regional Staff (S) and Management (M) (Region)
O


2. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Staff (S) or Management (M) (OERR)
N


3. Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA)



Submit draft proposed plans1 to OERR Regional Center Staff for reviews in the following focus



areas: (Focus Areas for Headquarters OERR Support for Regional Decision Making, OSWER



Directive 9200.1-17, May 22, 1996)



1) Risk management and cost-effectiveness decision documentation
S
S

• Clear presentation of risks that justify action, using reasonable land use and exposure



assumptions



• Description of how response action will address risks



• Description of other benefits of response action



• Determination that effectiveness of response justifies cost



2) Ground water policy
S
S

• Consistent implementation of presumptive response strategy for contaminated ground water



• Consistent implementation of technical impracticability guidance (Consistent Implementation of



the FY1993 Guidance on Technical Impracticability of Ground Water Restoration at Superfund



Sites, OSWER Directive 9200.4-14, January 1995)



3) Lead policy
s
s

• Consistent implementation of OSWER lead policy and coordination with cross-regional



technical and management review groups



4) Presumptive remedies
c
c

• Appropriate use of presumptive remedies whenever possible
o
O

1 Consultations are still required for non-time-critical removal actions costing over $5 million (see



SACM Regional Decision Teams and Early Action and Long-Term Action Under SACM, OSWER



Directive 9203.1-051, December 1992).



C-7
-------
TABLE 2
1
2
3
HQ APPROVAL/CONCURRENCE ON REMOVAL ACTIONS
R
O
A
Levels of Management Review
1.	Regional Staff (S) and Management (M) (Region)
2.	Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Staff (S) and Management (M) (OERR)
3.	Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA)
E
G
I
0
N
E
R
R
A
Removal Program Approval/Concurrence



The Superfund statute established certain limitations on the use of removal actions. Some of the
approval authority for exceeding these statutory limitations has been delegated to EPA Regional
offices, and some approval authority remains at Headquarters.



$2 million statutory limit exemptions:



•	Emergency Exemption requests exceeding $6 million
•	Consistency Exemption requests for non-NPL sites
•	All other exemptions
M

M
M
12-month statutory limit exemptions:



• All exemptions to the 12-month statutory limit
M


In addition, the process for obtaining Headquarters concurrence on nationally significant fund-lead
removal actions is described in Guidance on Non-NPL Removal Actions Involving Nationally
Significant or Precedent Setting Issues, OSWER Directive 9360.0-19, March 3, 1989. Subsequent
guidance has modified some of these consultation requirements (Response Actions at Sites with
Contamination Inside Buildings, OSWER Directive 9360.3-12, August 12, 1993).



1) Removal actions at sites within the United States or its territories involving contamination or
response actions that may affect other sovereign nations, including Indian Tribes.

M

2) Removal actions involving pesticide contamination arising from: a) improper storage of pesticide
products awaiting indemnification; b) lawful application of pesticides, including special local use
pesticides; or c) grain fumigation operations.

M

3) Removal actions at sites involving any form of dioxin when it is one of the principal contaminants
of concern.

M

4) Removal actions at sites involving releases from consumer products in consumer use (e.g., lead-
contaminated soil resulting from peeling lead-based paint on houses).

M

5) Removal actions involving asbestos when it is the principal contaminant of concern.

M

6) Removal actions involving substances or releases which may be subject to statutory exclusions or
limitations in CERCLA.

M

7) Response actions at sites with contamination inside buildings (e.g., indoor releases of mercury).

M

C-8
-------
TABLE 3
1
2
3
CROSS-REGIONAL
R
E
G
I
O
O
E
R
R
A
A
RESPONSE DECISIONS MANAGEMENT GROUPS

Levels of Management Review
1.	Regional Staff (S) and Management (M) (Region)
2.	Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Staff (S) and Management (M) (OERR)
3.	Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA)
N


1) National Remedy Review Board (National Remedy Review Board Progress Report: Fiscal Year
1996, OSWER Directive 9220.0-24, January 1997; and National Remedy Review Board Review
Criteria for Federal Facility Superfund Sites, OSWER Directive 9220.0-25, draft).



Response selection decisions for all sites (except DOE Radioactive-waste and DOD BRAC sites):



• Proposed remedy cost estimate exceeds $30 million
M
M

• Proposed remedy cost estimate exceeds $10 million and is 50% greater in cost than that of the
least-costly, protective, ARAR-compliant alternative
M
M

Response selection decisions involving radioactive-waste at DOE sites:



• Proposed remedy cost estimate exceeds $75 million
M
M

• Proposed remedy cost estimate exceeds $25 million and is 50% greater in cost than that of the
least-costly, protective, ARAR-compliant alternative
M
M

2) Lead Sites Management Workgroup
(Per direction of Superfund Waste Management Division Directors' Lead Policy Forum on
February 6, 1997.)



• Proposed remedy involves national precedent setting issues
M
M

C-9
-------
TABLE 4
1
2
3
CROSS-REGIONAL TECHNICAL REVIEW GROUPS
R
E
G
I
O
N
o
E
R
R
A
A
Levels of Management Review
1.	Regional Staff (S) and Management (M) (Region)
2.	Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Staff (S) and Management (M) (OERR)
3.	Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA)

1) Technical Review Workgroup (TRW) for Lead Sites (Administrative Reforms for Lead Risk
Assessment, OSWER Directive 9200.4-20, April 17, 1996)



• Send all completed lead risk assessments which used the IEUBK model to the TRW. A review
will focus on consistency with guidance.
S
S

• Identify for the TRW all IEUBK risk assessments that are either in planning or underway.
S
S

• Identify for the TRW any application of the IEUBK that is expected to be challenged or will set
a precedent in IEUBK application.
S
s

• Send any draft Regional guidance relating to lead to Headquarters for review prior to release.
S
s

• Any IEUBK risk assessment with outputs that are outside the range of 400 ppm to 1200 ppm
should be submitted for review.
s
s

• Any adult lead risk assessment that would suggest a preliminary remediation goal (PRG) output
outside the range of 500 ppm to 2000 ppm should be submitted for review.
s
s

2) Technical Review Workgroup for Dioxin Sites (Headquarters Consultation for Dioxin Sites,
OSWER Directive 9200.4-19, December 13, 1996)



• Submit for review pertinent information for all sites where remediation goals are to be
developed for dioxin in soil, regardless of whether dioxin itself drives the decision-making
process.
s
s

C-10
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
APPENDIX D:
RECORDS OF DECISION AND OTHER DECISION DOCUMENTS TO
EPA HEADQUARTERS
All Proposed Plans, RODs, ESDs, and ROD
Amendments should be sent to the Superfund Docu-
ment Center at EPA Headquarters within five working
days after they have been signed. Signed RODs are
abstracted for the ROD Annual Report and the ROD
Database. Documents should be sent to:
ROD Clearinghouse
Superfund Document Center
U.S. EPA Mail Code 5202G
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
FORMAT
In order to ensure consistency and to facilitate du-
plication and readability, please read the following check-
list and submit documents accordingly:
•	Provide one clear, legible copy of the docu-
ment (Proposed Plan, ROD, ESD, or ROD
Amendment).
•	Provide an electronic copy in the currently ap-
proved EPA word processing software.
•	Follow the formats described in this guidance
•	Landscape pages should be oriented so that
the top (long edge) of the landscape page is
placed on the left-hand side of the document.
•	Every page should be numbered.
•	Every page should have 1" margins on each
side of the page and at least V2" margins on
the top and bottom of each page.
•	All documents should be single-spaced.
•	For RODs and ROD Amendments, the signed
and dated signature page should always be
included. For ESDs, the publication or no-
tice date should be included.
ATTACHMENTS, CHARTS, TABLES,
MAPS, AND EXHIBITS
•	All columns and text should be displayed com-
pletely.
•	Computer printouts should be legible, espe-
cially cost estimate summary sheets. Dot-ma-
trix printouts do not copy well.
to the maximum extent practicable.
•	Submit complete documents (i.e., do not send
sections separately).
•	Submit clear copies (i.e., legible and ready to be
reproduced).
•	Print on white, 8 V2" x 11" paper with black
ink only (maps should be reproducible in black
and white).
•	Copies should be single-sided, unbound, and
without tabs (please do not send bound cop-
ies).
•	All tables, maps, and text should be on 8 72 x
11" paper. Do not reduce documents; instead,
have the documents reformatted.
ENFORCEMENT-
CONFIDENTIAL INSERTS
•	Enforcement-confidential pages should be la-
beled as such.
D-1
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
APPENDIX E:
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The following is a list of additional documents that may be useful in preparing Superfund decision documents
or are pertinent to the remedial decision-making process.
Administrative Reforms for Lead Risk Assessment (EPA 540-F-97-015, OSWER 9200.4-20, April 17, 1996).
Answers to Comments Submitted After the ROD is Signed, October 11, 1995 (http://www.es.epa.gov/oeca/osre/
951011.html).
Application of the CERCLA Municipal Landfill Presumptive Remedy to Military Landfills (EPA 540-F-96-020, OSWER
9355.0-67FS,	December 1996).
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part 1, Interim Final (EPA 540-G-89-006, OSWER 9234.1-01,
August 8, 1988).
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part 2, Clean Air Act and Other Environmental Statutes and State Regula-
tions (EPA 540-G-89-009, OSWER 9234.1-02, August 1989).
Clarification to the 1994 Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities (EPA
540-F-98-030, OSWER 9200.4-27P, August 27, 1998).
Close Out Procedures for National Priority List Sites (EPA 540-R-95-062, OSWER 9320.2-09, August 1995).
Community Relations During Enforcement Activities and Development of the Administrative Record (OSWER 9836.0-1A,
November 3, 1988).
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (EPA 540-R-92-009, OSWER 9230.0-03C, January 1992).
Considerations in Ground-Water Remediation at Superfund Sites and RCRA Facilities, Update (OSWTiR 9283.1-06, May 27,
1992).
Consistent Implementation of the FY1993 Guidance on Technical Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration at Superfund
Sites (EPA 540-F-95-001, OSWER 9200.4-14, January 19, 1995).
Consolidated Guide to Consultation Procedures for Superfund Response Decisions (EPA 540-F-97-009, OSWER Directive
9200.1-18FS,	May 14, 1997). Available as Appendix C of this guidance.
Early Action and Long-Term Action Under the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) (OSWER 9203.1-051, Vol.
1, No. 2, December 1992).
Final Guidance on Administrative Records for Selecting CERCLA Response Actions (OSWER 9833.3A-1, December
1990).
Focus Areas for Headquarters OERR Supportfor Regional Decision Making (OSWER 9200.1-17, May 22, 1996).
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, Interim Final (EPA 540-G-89-004,
OSWER 9355.3-01, October 1988).
Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment, Parts A and B, Final (OSWER 9285.7-09A and B, April and May
1992).
E-1
-------
Appendix E: Sources of Information
Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration (EPA 540-R-93-080, OSWER 9234.2-
25, October 1993).
Guidance Manualfor the Integrated Exposure Uptake Bio kinetic (IEUBK) Modelfor Lead in Children (EPA 540-R-93-081,
OSWER 9285.7-15-1, February 1994).
Guidance on Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) Under CERCLA and the NCP (OSWER
9203.1-03, July 7, 1992).
Guidance on Lead Determinations for CERCLA Fund-financed Responses (OSWER 9355.2-02, April 1992).
Guidance on Non-NPE Removal Actions Involving Nationally Significant or Precedent-Setting Issues (OSWER 9360.0-19,
March 1989).
Guidance on Oversight of Potentially Responsible Party Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies: Volumes 1 and 2, Final
(EPA 540-G-91-010a and b, OSWER 9835.1(c) and (d), July 1991).
^4 Guide to Principal Threat and Low Level Threat Wastes (OSWER 9380.3-06FS, November 1991).
^4 Guide to Selecting Superfund Remedial Actions (OSWER 9355.0-27FS, April 1990).
Headquarters Consultation forDioxin Sites (EPA 540-F-97-014, OSWER 9200.4-19, December 1996).
Implementing Presumptive Remedies: ^4 Notebook of Guidance and Resource Materials (EPA 540-R-97-029, OSWER
9378.0-11, October 1997).
Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund Decision-Making (OSWER 9230.0-18, January 1991).
Institutional Controls: A Reference Manual, March 1998, Draft.
Interim Guidance on Addressing Immediate Threats at NPE Sites (OSWER 9200.2-03, January 1990).
Interim Final Guidance on Preparing a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA) (OSWER 9375.0-01, May 1989).
Internet Home Page for EPA's Technical Review Workgroup for Lead (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
programs/lead/index.htm).
Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process (EPA 540-R-95-052, OSWER 9355.7-04, May 1995).
National Remedy Review Board Progress Report. Fiscal Year 1996 (EPA 540-R-97-001, OSWER 9220.0-24, January
1997).
National Remedy Review Board Progress Report. Fiscal Year 1997 (EPA 540-R-97-032, OSWER 9220.0-26, February
1998).
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingeny Plan (The NCP) (OSWER 9200.2-14, January 1992).
Presumptive Remedies and NCP Compliance (Memorandum from James E. Costello, Chairperson CERCLA Adminis-
trative Records Workgroup, ORC, Region VI, and George B. Wyeth, Office of General Counsel, June 14,
1995).
Presumptive Remedies for Soils, Sediments, and Sludges at Wood Treater Sites (EPA 540-R-95-128, OSWER 9200.5-162,
December 1995).
Presumptive Remedies: Policies and Procedures (EPA 540-F-93-047, OSWER 9355.0-47FS, September 1993).
E-2
-------
A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents
Vresumptive Remedies: Site Characterisation and Technology Selection for CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in
Soils (EPA 540-F-93-048, OSWER 9355.0-48FS, September 1993).
Vresumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites (EPA 540-F-93-035, OSWER 9355.0-49FS, September
1993).
Vresumptive Remedy for Sites with Metals in Soils (forthcoming).
Vresumptive Remedy: Supplemental Bulletin Multi-Vhase Extraction (MVE) Technology for VOCs in Soil and Ground Water
(EPA 540-F-97-004, OSWER 9355.0-68FS, April 1997).
Vresumptive Rxponse Strategy and Ex-Situ Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Ground Water at CERCLA Sites, Final
Guidance (EPA 540-R-96-023, OSWER 9283.1-12, October 1996).
VublishingEffective VublicNotices (OSWER 9378.OFS, April 1997).
Questions and Answers About the State Role in Remedy Selection at Non-Fund-Financed Enforcement Sites (OSWER 9831.9,
April 1991).
Remedial Action Costing Vrocedures Manual (EPA 600-8-87-049, October 1987).
Remedy Cost Estimating Vrocedures Manual: A Guide to Developing and Documenting Remedial Alternative Cost Estimates
During the Feasibility Study (EPA 540-R-98-045, OSWER 9355.0-10B-P, Draft).
Reponse Actions at Sites with Contamination Inside Buildings (OSWER 9360.3-12, August 12, 1993).
Restoration Advisory Board Implementation Guidelines (U.S. EPA and Department of Defense, September 27, 1994).
Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities (EPA 540-F-94-043,
OSWER 9355.4-12, July 1994).
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (VartA), Interim Final (EPA 540-1-
89-002, December 1989).
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Vart B, Development of Risk-Based
Vreliminary Remediation Goals), Interim Final (OSWER 9285.7-01B, December 1991). [Note: Soil Screening
Guidance provides improvements in inhalation and ground water exposure pathway discussions.]
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Vart C, Risk Evaluation of Remedial
Alternatives), Interim Final (EPA 540-R-92-004, OSWER 9285.7-01C, December 1991).
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Vart D, Standardised Vlanning,
Reporting and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments) Interim Final.\ (EPA 540-R-97-033, OSWE^R 9285.7-01D,
January 1998).
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume II. Environmental Evaluation Manual, Interim Final (EPA 540-1-89-001,
March 1989).
Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection (OSWE^R 9355.0-30, April 1991).
The Role of CSGWVVs in EVA Remediation Vrograms (EPA 540-F-95-084, OSWER 9283.1-09, April 4, 1997).
Rules of Thumb for Superfund Remedy Selection (EPA 540-R-97-013, OSWER 9355.0-69, August 1997).
SACM Regional Decision Teams - Interim Guidance (OSWER 9203.1-051, Vol. 1, No. 5, December 1992).
E-3
-------
Appendix E: Sources of Information
Site-Specific Advisory Board Guidance (Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy, October
1998).
Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide (EPA 540-R-96-018, OSWER 9355.4-23, July 1996).
Structure and Components of Five-Year Reviews (OSWER 9355.7-02, May 1991).
Suggested ROD Language for Various Ground-Water Remediation Options (OSWER Directive 9283.1-03, October 10,
1990).
Supeifund Reforms: Updating Remedy Decisions (EPA 540-F-96-026, OSWER 9200.0-22, September 1996).
Superfund Responsiveness Summaries (Superfund Management Review - Recommendation Number 43E) (OSWER 9230.0-06,
June 1990).
SupplemetalFive-Year Review Guidance (EPA 540-F-94-044, OSWER 9355.7-02A, July 1994).
Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term (OSWER 9285.7-081, Volume 1, Number 1, May
1992).
Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites (EPA
540-F-99-009, OSWER 9200.4-17P, April 1999).
User's Guide to the VOCs in Soils Presumptive Remedy (EPA 540-F-96-008, OSWER 9355.0-63FS, July 1996).
E-4
-------