EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response and
Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement
Office of Solid Waste and
Energency Response
Washington DC 20460
Office of Research and
Development
Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Superfund
EPA/540/G-85/003 June 1985
Guidance on
Feasibility Studies
Under CERCLA
-------
EPA/540/G-85/003
June 1985
Guidance on Feasibility Studies
Under CERCLA
Prepared for:
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
and
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
and
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded, wholly or in part, by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3113
to JRB Associates. It has been subject to the Agency's peer and administrative
review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
This document provides guidance for the preparation of .feasibility studies
required under the revised National Contingency Plan.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
Under the authorities of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), the Office of Emergency
and Remdial Response and the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement are
responsible for overseeing the development and implementation of the
Government's program for response to uncontrolled releases of hazardous
substances. These responses ensure that threats to public health, welfare,
or the environment are appropriately addressed through the effective
management of CERCLA1s enforcement and funding authorities. The Hazardous
Waste Engineering Laboratory develops new and improved technologies and
systems to prevent, treat, and manage hazardous waste pollutant discharges
to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of
pollution.
This document is a cooperative effort between the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response and the Office of Research and Development.
It is one of a series of reports being published to implement CERCLA,
otherwise known as Superfund. These reports provide an array of information
necessary for compliance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP, 47 FR
31180, July 16, 1982), including: guidance for remedial investigation and
feasibility studies, guidance for exposure assessments, analytical and
engineering methods and procedures, research reports, technical manuals,
toxicological and engineering data bases, and other reference documents
pertinent to Superfund.
This guidance document provides guidance for the preparation of
feasibility studies required under the revised NCP. It provides project
managers and decision makers in government and industry with guidelines for
developing and evaluating alternative remedial responses to be uncontrolled
releases of hazardous substances. In conjunction with other publications
in this series, it will assist in meeting the national goal of adequately
protecting public health, welfare, and the environment.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This guidance document is intended to provide a more detailed structure
for identifying, evaluating, and selecting remedial action alternatives
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300).
The feasibility study process begins with the development of specific
alternatives based on general response actions identified in the remedial
investigation to address site contamination problems. Technologies within
the categories are screened for their technical applicability to the site.
Technologies considered technically appropriate are then combined to form
alternatives that fulfill five specific categories. The alternatives are
screened on the basis of public health and environmental concerns and
order-of-magnitude costs.
Alternatives that pass the screening process undergo detailed analyses
to provide the decisionmaker with information for selecting the alternative
that is cost-effective. The detailed analyses encompasses engineering,
institutional, public health, environmental, and cost analyses. The
engineering analysis evaluates constructability and reliability to ensure
the implementability of alternatives. The institutional analysis examines
alternatives in terms of the Federal, State, or local requirements,
advisories, or guidance that must be considered to protect the public
health, welfare, and environment. The public health exposure evaluation
includes baseline site evaluation, exposure assessment, standards analysis,
short- and long-term effects of each alternative, and endangerment assess-
ment. The environmental analysis includes assessment of adverse impacts if
no action is taken and the short- and long-term effects of the alternatives.
The cost analysis examines capital and operation costs, and involves present
worth and sensitivity analyses.
Once the detailed analyses are conducted, the information is organized
to compare findings of the evaluations for each alternative. The objective
of this summary is to ensure that important information is presented in a
concise format so that the decisionmaker can choose the remedy that provides
the best balance of health and environmental protection, and engineering
reliability with cost.
A recommended format for the Feasibility Study Report is also provided.
It describes the specific elements to be included, the rationale for their
inclusions, the level of detail, and the documentation that should accompany
the report.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES x
TABLES xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xii
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 THE NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN FRAMEWORK FOR THE REMEDIAL
RESPONSE PROCESS 1-3
1.2 AN OVERVIEW OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS 1-6
1.3 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES MUST ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS 1-8
1.4 THE PROCESS APPLIES TO ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 1-9
1.5 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS UNDER DEVELOPMENT 1-9
2. DEVELOP A RANGE OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 OVERALL APPROACH 2-2
2.2 IDENTIFY GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS 2-4
2.2.1 Identify Site Problems 2-4
2.2.2 Identify General Response Actions 2-5
2.3 IDENTIFY AND SCREEN TECHNOLOGIES 2-6
2.4 DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES BY COMBINING TECHNOLOGIES 2-16
2.4.1 Source Control Remedies 2-18
2.4.2 Management of Migration Remedies 2-19
2.5 SCREEN ALTERNATIVES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND
COST FACTORS 2-20
2.5.1 Environmental and Public Health Screening 2-20
2.5.2 Cost Screening Factors 2-20
v
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
3. CONDUCT A DETAILED TECHNICAL EVALUATION 3-1
3.1 PERFORMANCE 3-2
3.1.1 Effectiveness 3-2
3.1.2 Useful Life 3-3
3.2 RELIABILITY 3-3
3.2.1 Operation and Maintenance Requirements 3-3
3.2.2 Demonstrated Performance 3-3
3.3 IMPLEMENT ABILITY 3-4
3.3.1 Constructability 3-4
3.3.2 Time 3-5
3.4 SAFETY 3-5
3.5 SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 3-6
4. EVALUATE INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 4-1
4.1 OVERVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 4-1
4.2 CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES 4-2
4.2.1 Selection of Remedy 4-4
4.3 EPA GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY 4-6
4.4 COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ACT (NEPA) 4-9
4.5 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES 4-9
4.5.1 Federal Emergency Management Agency 4-10
4.5.2 Health and Human Services 4-10
4.5.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 4-11
4.5.4 U.S. Geological Survey 4-11
4.5.5 Occupational Safety and Health Administration .... 4-12
4.5.6 National Response Team 4-12
4.5.7 Other Government Authorities 4-13
4.6 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 4-13
4.7 SUMMARY OF INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 4-15
5. EVALUATE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH REQUIREMENTS 5-1
5.1 OVERVIEW 5-1
VI
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5.2 DEVELOP A BASELINE SITE EVALUATION 5-2
5.3 DEVELOP AN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 5-3
5.4 COMPARE ALTERNATIVES TO APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 5-8
5.4.1 Assumptions Underlying Applicable and Relevant
Standards 5-15
5.4.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Hazardous
Waste Regulations (40 CFR 264) 5-15
5.4.3 National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards
(NIPDWs) and Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).... 5-16
5.4.4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). . . . 5-16
5.4.5 Federal Water Quality Criteria and State Water
Quality Standards 5-17
5.4.6 PCBs 5-18
5.5 CONSIDER OTHER CRITERIA AND ADVISORIES 5-18
5.5.1 Criteria for Noncarcinogens 5-18
5.5.2 Criteria for Carcinogens 5-18
5.5.3 Health Advisories (SNARLs) 5-19
5.6 ADJUSTMENT OF STANDARDS AND CRITERIA 5-19
5.7 UNAVAILABLE OR INAPPROPRIATE STANDARDS 5-19
5.8 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION 5-20
6. EVALUATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 6-1
6.1 OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6-2
6.2 EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE RESPONSES 6-2
6.2.1 Beneficial Effects of the Response 6-3
6.2.2 Adverse Effects of the Response 6-11
6.3 OTHER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS 6-12
6.4 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 6-12
7. CONDUCT A DETAILED COST ANALYSIS 7-1
7.1 ESTIMATION OF COSTS 7-3
7.1.1 Capital Costs 7-4
7.1.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs 7-5
7.1.3 Sources of Cost Information 7-6
VII
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
7.1.4 Updating Costs 7-7
7.1.5 Accuracy of Cost Estimates 7-7
7.2 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS 7-8
7.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 7-8
7.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 7-11
8. SUMMARIZE ALTERNATIVES 8-1
8.1 OVERVIEW 8-1
8.2 CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS 8-1
8.2.1 Other Federal Environmental Standards, Guidance, or
Advisories ". 8-3
8.2.2 State Environmental Standards, Guidance, or
Advisories 8-3
8.3 ORGANIZE AND PRESENT INFORMATION 8-3
9. FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FORMAT 9-1
9.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9-1
9.2 INTRODUCTION 9-1
9.2.1 Site Background Information 9-3
9.2.2 Nature and Extent of Problems 9-3
9.2.3 Objectives of Remedial Action 9-4
9.3 SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES 9-4
9.4 REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 9-5
9.5 ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES . : 9-6
9.5.1 Noncost Criteria Analysis 9-6
9.5.2 Cost Analysis 9-6
9.6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 9-7
9.7 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTION 9-7
9.8 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 9-8
9.9 REFERENCES 9-8
9.10 APPENDICES 9-8
viii
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A. FEASIBILITY STUDY MODEL STATEMENT OF WORK
APPENDIX B. PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING OFF-SITE
RESPONSE ACTIONS
APPENDIX C. CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
IX
-------
FIGURES
Page
1-1 Current NCP Process 1-2
1-2 RI/FS Process 1-5
1-3 Feasibility Study Process 1-7
2-1 Feasibility Study Alternative Development and Screening
Process 2-3
7-1 Feasibility Study Cost Evaluation Process 7-2
-------
TABLES
Page
2-1 General Response Actions and Associated Remedial Technologies. . 2-7
2-2 Remedial Technologies 2-8
2-3 Site Characteristics That May Affect Remedial Technology
Selection 2-15
2-4 Waste Characteristics That May Affect Remedial Technology
Selection 2-15
3-1 Summary of Technical Feasibility Evaluation 3-7
4-1 Applicable or Relevant Requirements 4-16
4-2 Other Requirements, Advisories, and Guidance to Be Considered. . 4-19
5-1 Questions in Exposure Assessment 5-5
5-2 EPA Ambient Standards and Criteria for Superfund
Remedial Sites 5-9
5-3 Summary of Key Public Health Evaluation Questions 5-21
6-1 Availability of State Ambient Water Quality Criteria or
Standards for Toxic Substances 6-5
6-2 Suggested Summary Form for Use by the Environmental Section to
Evaluate Remedial Alternatives 6-13
7-1 Present Worth Analysis of Three Alternatives at Three
Discount Rates 7-10
8-1 Source Control Alternatives Summary for Lehigh Electric 8-6
8-2 Management of Migration Alternatives Summary for Reilly Tar,
First Operable Unit 8-7
8-3 Source Control and Management of Migration Alternatives Summary
for Hard Times Waste Site 8-8
9-1 Feasibility Study Report Format 9-2
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was developed for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response and represents a collective effort of many Agency and contractor
personnel. Richard Stanford1 and Bruce Clemens of the Policy Analysis
Staff, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) and Douglas Amman
of the Hazardous Waste Engineering Laboratory were the EPA Co-Project
Officers. Richard Stanford is especially acknowledged for conceptual
development and project management. James Lounsbury, Director, Policy
Analysis Staff, OERR, Brint Bixler, OERR, and Clarence demons, Center for
Environmental Research Information, ORD contributed significantly to the
project. Policy development efforts of James Lounsbury, Syliva Lowrance,
Douglas Cohen and Brint Bixler are acknowledged. Doris Sanders, Robert
Cochran, and Virginia Hodge were successive project managers with JRB
Associates and associated with project coordination. The final report is a
compilation of efforts of the following contributors:
Remedial Alternative Development
and Screening
Paul Rogoshewski,
Robert Cochran,
Virginia Hodge, JRB
Asssociates
Richard Stanford1, U.S. EPA
Evaluation of Technical Feasibility William Adams, NUS Corp.
Richard Stanford1, U.S. EPA
Public Health Evaluation
Joseph Rodricks, Environ
Gilah Langner, Stephen Bailey,
ICF Incorporated
Van Kozak, Lee Schiltz,
Versar, Inc.
Priscilla Holzclaw, John Hall,
U.S. EPA
Institutional Issues
Gilah Langner, Nicholas Bauer,
ICF, Incorporated
Environmental Assessment
Edward Yang, James Warner,
Environmental Law Institute
Richard Stanford1, U.S. EPA
Currently with Clean Sites, Inc.
xii
-------
Cost Analysis
Summary of Alternatives
Report Format
Robert Cochran, JRB Associates
Michael Culpepper, CH.M-Hill
Bruce Clemens, U.S. EPA
Brint Bixler, U.S. EPA
Richard Stanford
U.S. EPA
Virginia Hodge,
JRB Associates
1
Jeff Kolb,
Preparation of this guidance document was aided greatly by the
constructive contributions of the following reviewers:
Barbara Ikalanien
John Mateo
Tom Voltaggio
Anthony Rutter
John Br ink
Craig Wolff
Roy Murphy
Nancy Willis
Brint Bixler
G.M. Gigliotti
Robert Kissell
Jim Spatarella
U.S. EPA Region I
U.S. EPA Region II
U.S. EPA Region III
U.S. EPA Region V
U.S. EPA Region VIII
U.S. EPA OPPE
U.S. EPA OWPE
U.S. EPA OERR
U.S. EPA OERR
U.S. EPA CERI
Chemical Manufacturers Assn.
U.S. EPA OERR
We also appreciate the assistance of the following EPA Work Group
members:
James Lounsbury
Lee Modesitt
Rob Clemens
Helen Keplinger
Craig Zamuda
Stacey Katz
Don Banning
Gary Cohen
Doug Ammon
Brint Bixler
Bob Linett
Sam Gutter
Abe Mittelman
Arnold M. Kuzmack
Chris DeRosa
Charles Gregg
Karen McCormack
Heidi Hughes
Chairman
OEA
OWPE
OECM-Waste
OERR
OPPE
ORD/HWERL
OWEP
ORD/HWERL
HSCD/OERR
OWRS
OGC
OWPE
ODW
ORD/OHEA/ECAO
OW
OPTS
OECM-W
1
Currently with Clean Sites, Inc.
Xlll
-------
Jerry Schwartz OECM-W
Richard Robinson OLEP
Gail Korb OARM
Deborah Taylor OA
Appreciation is also extended to the numerous other individuals from
Federal, State, industry, and environmental organizations who were contacted
on matters related to this guidance document.
xiv
-------
CHAPTER 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) establishes a national program for responding to
releases of hazardous substances into the environment. The funding
mechanism for this program is the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund
(commonly referred to as the Superfund), which provides funding for the
studies of such releases and the development and implementation of removal
and remedial response actions. The operational centerpiece of this program,
that ensures the Superfund is used as effectively as possible for these
purposes, is the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan (NCP), originally promulgated under section 311 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act and revised under section 105 of CERCLA.
Executive Order 12316 delegates to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) the authority and responsibility for management of the
Superfund and implementation of the site response program. In accordance
with section 105 of CERCLA, EPA has established procedures for reporting
releases, evaluating remedies, determining the appropriate extent of
response, and assuring that remedies are cost-effective; and has incorpo-
rated these procedures in the NCP (47 FR 31180, July 16, 1982; 40 CFR 300)
as Subpart F (40 CFR 300.61-300.71). Additional amendments were proposed on
February 12, 1985, and are anticipated to be published after the publication
of this document. Many of the proposed changes in the revised NCP that
relate to conducting an RI/FS have been incorporated into this guidance
document.
Subpart F of the NCP sets forth the process by which remedial actions
will be evaluated and selected, shown in Figure 1-1, and the factors to be
considered in this process under the requirements of section 105. Response
to and action to minimize damage from hazardous substances releases must, to
the greatest extent practicable, be in accordance with the NCP.
The purpose of this guidance document is to provide a more detailed
analytical structure to the framework for identifying, evaluating, and
selecting remedial action alternatives put forth in the NCP. This guidance
should be used by Federal and State Remedial Project Managers and their
contractors, who are responsible for developing and preparing supporting
documentation for remedial actions performed under CERCLA. Additionally,
this guidance should be used by Federal, State, and private hazardous waste
management officials developing remedial actions at sites where enforcement
actions are taken, or for which claims against the Fund are to be presented.
1-1
-------
Figure 1*1. Currant NCP Process
N)
Is
there
•tin a threat
to public health.
welfare, or the
anvironmenl
Remedial
design
Yes
Limited
remedial
planning
-•»
|
Initial
remedial
measures
-------
It is important to note that, while this document provides analytical
guidance to the user, it does not provide guidance on the overall management
of the remedial process, nor does it provide specific guidance on the best
analytical techniques to use on a site-by-site basis. Management guidance
is provided in separate EPA/State participation, enforcement, and contract
management guidance documents. Technical guidance documents that may be
useful in conducting specific analyses are available or forthcoming. These
documents are discussed further at the end of this chapter.
1.1 THE NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN FRAMEWORK FOR THE REMEDIAL RESPONSE
PROCESS
The NCP sets forth a five step remedial response process:
1. Site discovery or notification: A release of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants identified by Federal, State, local
government agencies, or private parties is reported to the National
Response Center (NRC). Upon discovery, such potential sites are
screened to identify release situations warranting further remedial
response consideration. These sites are entered into the Emergency
and Remedial Response Inventory System (ERRIS); this computerized
system serves as a data base of site information and tracks the
change in status of a site through the remedial response process.
2. Preliminary assessment and site inspection (PA/SI): The
preliminary assessment involves the collection and review of all
available information and may include off-site reconnaissance to
evaluate the source and nature of hazardous substances present and
to identify the responsible party(s). Depending on the results of
the PA, a site may be referred for further action. Site
inspections routinely include the collection of samples and are
conducted to determine the extent of the problem and to obtain
information needed to determine whether a removal action is needed
at the site or whether the site should be included on the National
Priorities List (NPL).
3. Establishing priorities for remedial action: Sites are scored
using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) and the data from the PA/SI.
This scoring process is the primary mechanism for identifying sites
to be included in the National Priorities List (NPL), which in turn
is the guide for allocating Superfund monies for cleanups. Sites
that receive a score of 28.5 or greater will be proposed as
candidates for the NPL. After public comment, these sites may be
included on the NPL.
4. Remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS): Site investi-
gations are conducted to obtain information needed to identify,
select, and evaluate remedial action alternatives in the feasi-
bility study based on technological, public health, institutional,
1-3
-------
cost, and environmental factors. The final result of this step is
selection of the most appropriate, cost-effective solution. In
some cases, the RI may show that no further action is needed.
5. Remedial action design and construction: The actual design of the
selected remedial action is developed then implemented through
construction.
Under step 4 above, the NCP requires that the need for appropriate
response actions must be identified in the project scoping stage, prior to
planning the RI, in order to establish a basis for RI and FS funding. The
information from the preliminary assessment, site inspection, or other
sources is used to determine the general types of response actions
applicable to the site for use in planning the RI. The NCP also requires
that a detailed remedial investigation and feasibility study be conducted
for the sites that are listed on the National Priorities List (section 105
of CERCLA) and targetted for remedial response under section 104 of CERCLA
in order to obtain the data necessary to define the problem and evaluate and
select alternative remedial measures. The remedial investigation (RI—for
which separate guidance has been developed) provides site characterization
data that serve as the basis for development of the feasibility study (FS).
In the FS, alternative remedial actions are developed and evaluated in terms
of cost, engineering implementation and constructability, the extent to
which each alternative provides protection to public health and the environ-
ment, and environmental impacts during or remaining after implementation.
Remedies that are developed and implemented by private parties under CERCLA
must also be consistent with the NCP.
The feasibility study and remedial investigation are interdependent.
The activities comprising these two projects are generally performed con-
currently rather than sequentially. The remedial investigation emphasizes
data collection and site characterization while the feasibility study em-
phasizes data analysis and evaluation of alternatives. Because of the
complex nature of many sites, however, new site characterization information
may be developed as the RI progresses that requires reassessment of the
general types of response actions identified, with the possible addition of
other types of responses. In turn, this may require expanding the remedial
investigation to develop the data necessary to evaluate the new
alternatives.
Figure 1-2 presents a flow chart of the RI/FS process, illustrating the
interdependence and concurrence of tasks performed in the remedial investi-
gation and feasibility study. The numbers identifying the tasks (boxes) in
the flow chart are keyed to the tasks in the model contract statements of
work for remedial investigations and feasibility studies, and are tabulated
under the flow charts. (EPA1s model statement of work for feasibility
studies is provided in Appendix A of this document.) Chapters of this
document and its companion document, the "Remedial Investigation Guidance
Document," which provides guidance for performing the respective tasks are
identified in this figure by task. Additionally, the figure shows
milestones and identifies specific reports which may be required.
1-4
-------
Figure 1-2. RI/FS Process
I
Ln
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
It
STUDY
Site Map
(
8
» 1
3
1
«
! 5
9
1
10
Remedial Options
\ Negotiations Document
QA/QC Plan
11
1
I
SOW for Bench
Pilot-Scale Tests
12
6
4
and Final Rl
13
t
Report
Interim Report Health and Safety Plan
- Site Background Management Plan |
Nature of Problem Sampling Plan
- Extent of Problem Community Relations Plan
7
Endangerment
Assessment*
t
Admmistra
Document
t
live Re>
Contro
14
)orts
Fina
^
I
Report
15
Draft FS or RI/FS Report
- History of Response Data Management Plan
I
Endangerment
Assessment"
Post-Closure Plan
Compliance Monitoring Schedule
Administrative Reports
Document Control
Remedial Investigation
Feasibility Study
Model Statement of Work
for Remedial Investigations
Task #1 Description of Current Situation
Task #2 Plans & Management
Task #3 Site Investigation
Task #4 Site Investigation Analysis
Task #5 Laboratory & Bench-Scale Studies
Task #6 Reports
Task #7 - Community Relations Support
t Numbers in ihe boxes refer to tasks described in
* Endangerment dbsessments may be prepared at
Guidance Document for
Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA
CH 1 Introduction
CH 2 - Scoping
CH 3 - Sampling Plan Development
CH 4 - Data Management Procedures
CH 5 - Health and Safety Planning for
Remedial Investigations
CH 6 Institutional Issues
CH 7 - Site Characterization
CH 8 - Pilot and Bench Studies
CH 9 Remedial Investigation Report Format
Model Statement of Work
for Feasibility Studies
Task # 8 - Description of Proposed Response
Task # 9 Preliminary Remedial Technologies
Task #10 Development of Alternatives
Task #11 Initial Screening of Alternatives
Task #12 Evaluation of Alternatives
Task #13 Preliminary Report
Task #14 - Final Report
Task #15 - Additional Requirements
the Model Statement of Work for Rl FS under CERCLA Guidance issued February 1985 See Appendix A
dny point in tin; Rl FS ptocess in support of enforcement actions
Guidance Document for
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA
CH 1 - Executive Summary
CH 2 Develop a Range of Remedial
Alternatives
CH 3 - Conduct a Detailed Technical
/ Evaluation
CH 4 Evaluate Institutional Requirements
CH 5 Evaluate Protection of Public Health
Requirements
CH 6 Evaluate Environmental Impacts
CH 7 Cost Analysis
CH 8 Summarize Alternatives
CH 9 - Feasibility Study Report Format
-------
1.2 AN OVERVIEW OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS
The feasibility study process is outlined in Figure 1-3. The first
step of the feasibility study, defining the objectives of the action and
broadly developing response actions, should be performed as a refinement to
project scoping during the remedial investigation and should be summarized
in the final remedial investigation report. There may be modification of
this scoping as data are collected or as the general response actions are
more fully developed during the feasibility study stage. The remedial
alternatives developed at this point are general response actions which
broadly define the nature of the response. In general, they should address
whether source control measures (measures designed to prevent or minimize
migration of hazardous substances from the source) and/or management of
migration measures (measures designed to mitigate the impact of contamina-
tion that has migrated into the environment) are necessary, and what phasing
of these measures (operable units) may be necessary. The terms "source
control" and "management of migration" refer to two general categories of
response actions that are useful for developing specific alternatives. The
term "on-site response actions" in the policy on CERCLA compliance with
other environmental laws refers to both source control and management of
migration measures. These requirements are discussed throughout this
document.
The next step in the process is the development of specific alterna-
tives within the general response categories. First, technologies within
the categories are screened for their technical applicability to the site.
Technologies considered technically appropriate are then combined to form
operable units that address one or more aspects of the identified site
problems. These operable units may then be combined to form alternatives
addressing the complete site. The alternatives are then screened on the
basis of public health, environmental, and cost concerns. Development and
screening of alternatives is discussed in detail in chapter 2.
The next five activities comprise the detailed analysis of alterna-
tives, which is necessary to provide the decisionmaker with information for
selecting the alternative that is cost-effective. The remaining chapters of
this guidance document provide a framework for developing the necessary
analysis for making this selection. Each chapter discusses a major aspect
of the feasibility study process. Chapter 3 covers the engineering analysis
Management of migration measures have previously been known as "off-site"
measures, as defined in section 300.68(e)(3) of the NCP. This term has
been changed to avoid confusion between measures involving the minimization
or mitigation of migration of wastes or contaminants which have moved away
from the source, and off-site disposal of wastes following removal from a
site. Management of migration measures are measures taken to mitigate or
minimize the further migration of contaminants which have already moved
from the source. Off-site treatment or disposal of wastes following
removal, referred to as off-site treatment or disposal, is generally a
source control measure.
1-6
-------
Figure 1-3. Feasibility Study Process
Characterize Problem
and Identity
General Resoonsa
Actions
Project Scoping
See 'Remedial Investigation Guidance
Document/ NCP 1300 681 gt
Formulate ft
Oeveloo
Alternatives £r
Technologies
Identify Alternatives
Ch 2, NCP 1300 631 g)
Tecnntcai Analysis
Ch 3 I
NCP 4300 68(hH3HiM2HA)
Technical
Screening
Environmental and
Public Health
Cost Screening
identify Alternative
Remedial Actions
Public Health
Analysis
Ch 5
NCP *30068lhM3)li)l2HD) ' >
Screen Alternatives/ Technologies
Ch 2. NCP «30Q68(hH1).(2U3}
Cost Analysis
|Ch 7
NCP l30068lh)(3)(iH2HB)
Institutional
Analysis
Ch 4
NCP i300 68(h)(3)li)l2)(C)
Environmental
Analysis
Summary
of Alternatives
Ch 8
Oetan«d Analysis
of Alternatives
Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis
NCP ^300 68lnH3)!i)(2)
Final Feasibility
Report
Ch 9*
Note NCP sections identified refer to those cited in the Federal Register July 16 1982
'Not specified sections of the NCP
1-7
-------
of the alternatives in terms of constructability and reliability to ensure
the implementability of alternatives. Chapter 4 covers the institutional
analysis of alternatives in terms of the Federal, State, or local standards,
advisories, or guidance that must be attained or considered to protect the
public health, welfare, and environment. Chapter 5 covers public health
exposure evaluation, and chapter 6 covers the environmental analysis of
alternatives. The evaluation of the costs of alternatives is discussed in
chapter 7. Chapter 8 provides guidance on how to organize and summarize the
information developed in analyses described in previous chapters. The
objective of this summary is to ensure that important information is
presented in a concise format so that the decisionmaker can choose the
remedy that provides the best balance of health and environmental
protection, and engineering reliability with cost.
Chapter 9 discusses the format of the report for the feasibility study.
It identifies the elements of the feasibility study report, the rationale
for their inclusion, the level of detail, and the documentation necessary to
accompany the report.
1.3 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES MUST ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
EPA's current policy, regarding compliance of CERCLA response actions
with the requirements of other environmental laws, is to give primary con-
sideration to the selection of those response actions that are effective in
preventing or, where prevention is not practicable, minimizing the release
of hazardous substances so that they do not migrate to cause substantial
danger to present or future public health, welfare, or the environment. As
a general rule, this can be accomplished by pursuing remedies that meet the
standards of applicable or relevant Federal public health or environmental
laws. However, because of the unique circumstances at particular sites,
there may be alternatives that do not meet the standards of other laws, but
which still provide protection of public health, welfare, and the environ-
ment. For example, at certain sites, it may be technically impractical,
environmentally unacceptable, or excessively costly to implement a response
action that fully attains the requirements of the laws.
This policy effectively examines response actions which prevent
hazardous substances from migrating into the environment and actions which
minimize migration, recognizing that CERCLA primarily addresses inadequate
past disposal practices and resultant unique site conditions.
On-site source control or management of migration measures will not
require environmental permits; however, off-site waste treatment, storage,
or disposal must be at a facility permitted under the appropriate
environmental law. However, this requirement does not prohibit a State or
local authority from fulfilling their respective permitting requirements.
The application of this policy in developing and selecting remedies at
1-8
-------
Superfund sites is discussed in subsequent chapters. EPA has also included
requirements of this policy in the proposed revisions to the NCP.
1.4 THE PROCESS APPLIES TO ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Enforcement actions must follow the same analytical steps for develop-
ing and evaluating remedial actions as Federal- and State-lead, Fund-financed
actions. Additionally, to support enforcement case preparation, regional and
State project managers and their contractors may be required to prepare endan-
germent assessments and remedial options negotiations documents. Basically,
these documents characterize the threat to public health and the environment
posed by the site and the alternatives for mitigating that threat.
Chapter 10 (forthcoming) discusses in greater detail enforcement
actions and necessary support documentation. The chapter identifies the
procedures governing potential responsible party (PRP) participation in the
development of the RI/FS. The chapter highlights stages of PRP participa-
tion in an RI/FS that are unique from an enforcement perspective. The
chapter also addresses the differences between PRP and Fund-financed RI/FS.
1.5 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS UNDER DEVELOPMENT
The user should be aware of additional policy, management, and
technical guidance that may affect the conduct of the FS. Some of the most
important of these include:
• "Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions"
• "Agency Policy on CERCLA Compliance with other Environmental Laws"
• "Guidance for Remedial Investigations under CERCLA"
• "Methodology for Screening and Evaluation of Remedial Responses"
• Surface Cleanup Guidance for Drums, Tanks, and Lagoons
• Guidance for Alternative Water Supply
• "Remedial Action Costing Procedures Manual"
• "Compendium of Costs for Remedial Technologies"
• "Superfund Public Health Procedures"
• "Health Effects Assessment Documents"
• "Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual"
• "Endangerment Assessment Guidance"
• "User's Guide to the Contract Laboratory Program"
1-9
-------
• "State Participation in the Superfund Remedial Program"
• "Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook."
While many of these documents are available, several are currently in pre-
paration and will be forthcoming.
1-10
-------
CHAPTER 2
DEVELOP A RANGE OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) out-
lines a process for identifying, developing, and evaluating remedial action
alternatives for a given site. The process begins with project scoping,
discussed in chapter 2 of the EPA's "Remedial Investigation Guidance
Document." As part of project scoping, general response actions to remedy
known problems at the site are identified (based upon existing data) as a
basis for planning the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study.
Remedial response actions fall into three general categories: initial
remedial measures , source control, and management of migration. NCP
project scoping requirements are specified in NCP Section 300.68(d) , which
states in part:
(d) The lead agency, in cooperation with the State(s), will examine
available information and determine...the type or types of
remedial response that may be needed to remedy the release. This
scoping will serve as the basis for requesting funding for a
remedial investigation and feasibility study....
With additional site-specific data from the remedial investigation, remedial
alternatives within the general response categories are developed and evalu-
ated. As a result of the investigation, it may be determined that addi-
tional general response actions are needed.
The development and evaluation of remedial alternatives then proceeds
in three phases. First, a limited number of alternatives are developed.
Second, an initial screening of these alternatives reduces them to a work-
able number. Third, a limited number of remedial alternatives, based on
those that have passed the initial screening, are analyzed in detail.
Section 300.68(g), (h), and (i) of the NCP outlines this process:
(g) Development of Alternatives. A limited number of alternatives
should be developed for either source control or [management of
The proposed revisions to the NCP eliminate initial remedial measures as a
remedial response category. Response actions conducted previously as
initial remedial measures will, in the future, be considered removal
actions, source control measures, or management of migration measures.
2Federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 137, July 16, 1982.
2-1
-------
migration] (or both) depending upon the type of response that has
been identified...as being appropriate.
(h) Initial Screening of Alternatives. The alternatives developed...
will be subjected to an initial screening to narrow the list of
potential remedial actions for further detailed analysis.
(i) Detailed Analysis of Alternatives. (1) A more detailed evaluation
will be conducted of .the limited number of alternatives that
remain after the initial screening....
This chapter is a guide to the first two phases of this process. Chapters 3
through 7 of this document provide guidance on the third phase, the detailed
analysis of alternatives.
2.1 OVERALL APPROACH
The recommended alternative development and screening procedure (Figure
2-1) consists of six steps.
Identify General Response Actions
1. Identify site problems and pathways of contamination (remedial
investigation) .
2. Identify general response actions that address site problems and
meet cleanup goals and objectives.
Identify and Screen Technologies and Develop Remedial Alternatives
3. Identify possible technologies in each general response action,
then screen the technologies to eliminate inapplicable and
infeasible technologies based on site conditions.
4. Assemble technologies into operable units based on the remaining
feasible technologies.
Screen Public Health, Environmental, and Cost Factors
5. Screen alternatives, eliminating those that have significant ad-
verse impacts or that obviously do not adequately protect the
environment, public health, and public welfare.
3
Detailed guidance for identifying pathways is forthcoming in the Public
Health Procedures Manual.
2-2
-------
Figure 2-1. Feasibility Study Alternative Development and Screening Process
NJ
I
U)
r ^
| Identify
I Site
| (Remedial
| Investigation)
i .. _ ., . i
*
Identify
General
Response
Actions
Conduct
Environmental
and Public
Health
Screening
Identify and
Screen
Technologies
Conduct
Pn«!t
Screening
Assemble
Alternatives
Alternatives
for
Detailed
Analysis
-------
6. Screen alternatives, eliminating those that are an order of magni-
tude higher in cost than other alternatives but do not provide
significantly greater environmental or public health benefits or
technical reliability.
Developing and screening remedial alternatives is actually a repetitive
process that may take place at several points in the RI/FS process. The
process may begin during the remedial investigation to define the field data
requirements of specific remedial action alternatives. As more site data
are collected, existing alternatives may be rescreened, or additional alter-
natives developed to reflect improved understanding of the site. Screening
may also occur during the detailed analysis of alternatives if it is decided
that an alternative should not be considered further, based upon the
screening criteria discussed in steps 5 and 6 (the reasons for such a
decision must be clearly documented).
Each study should, at a minimum, include each of the six elements,
although some studies may require modifications of this process to meet site
conditions. Each feasibility study should concisely summarize the results
of each step, as explained in chapter 9. In some circumstances, especially
if the site is undergoing remediation pursuant to enforcement actions, an
interim report identifying the remaining remedial alternatives may be pre-
pared. This report is known as a Remedial Options Negotiation Document and
supports Agency negotiations with responsible parties by identifying appro-
priate remedial technologies and alternatives for site cleanup, considering
any previous site work and any in progress. Normally, regional enforcement
personnel decide whether such a document is required.
The alternative development and screening steps described in the
following sections of this chapter are presented rather formally, but the
process is generally a more informal matter of using established engineering
practices. The formal process, summarized below, need not be followed
rigidly, but it should be used as a framework for documenting the initial
screening decisions.
2.2 IDENTIFY GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS
The development of remedial alternatives (steps 1 through 4 above), is
described in detail in the following sections.
2.2.1 Identify Site Problems
The user should identify alternatives that address all significant site
problems and pathways of contamination identified during the remedial
investigation. Site problems can generally be placed in one or more of the
following categories: (1) air pollution; (2) surface water infiltration or
contamination; (3) leachate generation and contaminated ground water; (4)
gas migration; (5) presence of wastes in drums, lagoons, etc.; (6)
2-4
-------
contaminated sediments and soils; and (7) contaminated water supply and
sewer lines.
The information needed to identify the site problem is usually gathered
during the preliminary assessment and the site inspection and summarized in
the initial scoping of the remedial investigation. The EPA manual
"Methodology for Screening and Evaluation of Remedial Responses" presents
sample site problems, with their associated classes of remedial responses,
as part of a recommended approach to technology selection and screening.
2.2.2 Identify General Response Actions
Based on site information from the remedial investigation, the user
should identify general response actions, or classes of response without
necessarily identifying specific technologies. General response actions
considered should include the "no action" alternative as a baseline against
which other measures can be measured. Examples of general response actions
include the following:
5
• No action"
• Containment
• Pumping
- On-site
- Off-site
• Collection
• Diversion
• Complete removal
• Partial removal
• On-site treatment
• In situ treatment
• Storage
• On-site disposal
• Off-site disposal
• Alternative drinking water supply
• Relocation of receptors
• Other off-site measures.
4T
In preparation.
The "no action" alternative does not preclude removal action under the
CERCLA removal program.
2-5
-------
2.3 IDENTIFY AND SCREEN TECHNOLOGIES
The user should identify feasible technologies for each general res-
ponse action identified, recognizing that there may be compatible and incom-
patible combinations of source control and management of migration measures.
Table 2-1 is a partial list of technologies appropriate to the general
response actions described above. Some technologies should be modified or
eliminated, such as those that may prove extremely difficult to implement,
may not achieve the remedial objective in a reasonable time, or may rely on
unproven technology.
Table 2-2 is a comprehensive list of remedial technologies classified
according to the kinds of site problems they are intended to mitigate. For
technologies that can be used in various configurations, several "function
options" are also given. Similarly, where different materials may be used
in the same technology, "materials options" are provided. The user should
refer to the EPA "Handbook for Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites"
(June 1982) for a more comprehensive description of these technologies.
During technology screening, the use of this list will help ensure that all
remedial technologies are considered. The list should be updated periodi-
cally to incorporate newly developed technologies.
The user should review site data to identify conditions that may limit
or promote the use of certain remedial technologies. Such information is
generally gathered during the site investigation or remedial investigation.
Table 2-3 identifies site characteristics that should be evaluated as part
of the screening process. Technologies whose use is clearly precluded by
site characteristics should be eliminated from consideration.
The user should also identify waste characteristics that limit the
effectiveness or feasibility of the remedial technologies. Such character-
istics include: (1) physical properties such as volatility, solubility, and
density; (2) specific chemical constituents such as chlorinated organic
chemicals or metals; and (3) properties that determine the waste's toxicity
or degree of hazard, such as persistence, acute toxicity, and ignitability.
Table 2-4 presents waste characteristics that may influence the feasibility
and effectiveness of remedial actions. Technologies clearly limited by
waste characteristics should be eliminated from consideration.
The user should also identify the level of technology development,
performance record, and inherent construction, operation, and maintenance
problems of each technology considered. Technologies that are unreliable,
perform poorly, or are not fully demonstrated should be eliminated. Limita-
tions of various remedial 'technologies are discussed in the EPA "Handbook
for Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites" (June 1982) and other documents
listed in the bibliography.
The user may wish to use a previously developed methodology that
presents feasible remedial technologies and their limiting waste, site, and
technology characteristics. The EPA manual "Methodology for Screening and
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-1. GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AND ASSOCIATED
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
General Response
Action
Technologies
No Action
Containment
Pumping
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Partial Removal
On-site Treatment
Off-site Treatment
In Situ Treatment
Storage
On-site Disposal
Off-site Disposal
Alternative Water
Supply
Relocation
Some monitoring and analyses may be performed.
Capping; ground water containment barrier walls;
bulkheads; gas barriers.
Ground water pumping; liquid removal; dredging.
Sedimentation basins; French drains; gas vents; gas
collection systems.
Grading; dikes and berms; stream diversion ditches;
trenches; terraces and benches; chutes and downpipes;
levees; seepage basins.
Tanks; drums; soils; sediments; liquid wastes;
contaminated structures; sewers and water pipes.
Tanks; drums; soils; sediments; liquid wastes.
Incineration; solidification; land treatment;
biological, chemical, and physical treatment.
Incineration; biological, chemical, and physical
treatment.
Permeable treatment beds; bioreclamation; soil
flushing; neutralization; land farming.
Temporary storage structures.
Landfills; land application.
Landfills; surface impoundments; land application.
Cisterns; aboveground tanks; deeper or
upgradient wells; municipal water system; relocation
of intake structure; individual treatment devices.
Relocate residents temporarily or permanently.
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-2. REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
A. Air Pollution Controls
• Capping
- Synthetic membranes
- Clay
- Asphalt
- Multimedia cap
- Concrete
- Chemical sealants/stabilizers
• Dust Control Measures
- Polymers
- Water
B. Surface Water Controls
• Capping (see A.)
• Grading
- Scarification
- Tracking
- Contour furrowing
• Revegetation
- Grasses
- Legumes
- Shrubs
- Trees, conifers
- Trees, hardwoods
• Diversion and Collection Systems
- Dikes and berms
- Ditches and trenches
- Terraces and benches
- Chutes and downpipes
- Seepage basins
- Sedimentation basins and ponds
(continued)
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-2. (continued)
- Levees
- Addition of freeboard
- Floodwalls
C. Leachate and Ground Water Controls
• Capping (see A.)
• Containment barriers
Function options
- Downgradient placement
- Upgradient placement
- Circumferential placement
Material and construction options (vertical barriers)
- Soil-bentonite slurry wall
- Cement-bentonite slurry wall
- Vibrating beam
- Grout curtains
- Steel sheet piling
Horizontal barriers (bottom sealing)
- Block displacement
- Grout injection
• Ground water pumping (generally used with capping and treatment)
Function options
- Extraction and injection
- Extraction alone
- Injection alone
Equipment and Material Options
- Well points
- Deep wells
(continued)
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-2. (continued)
- Suction wells
- Ejector wells
• Subsurface Collection Drains
- French drains
- Tile drains
- Pipe drains (dual media drains)
D. Gas Migration Controls (generally used with treatment)
• Capping (gas barriers) (see A.)
• Gas collection and/or recovery
- Passive pipe vents
- Passive trench vents
- Active gas collection systems
E. Excavation and Removal of Waste and Soil
• Excavation and removal
- Backhoe
- Cranes and attachments
- Front end loaders
- Scrapers
- Pumps
- Industrial vacuums
- Drum grapplers
- Forklifts and attachments
• Grading (see B.)
• Capping (see A.)
• Revegetation (see B.)
F. Removal and Containment of Contaminated Sediments
• Sediment removal
(continued)
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-2. (continued)
Mechanical dredging
- Clamshell
- Dragline
- Backhoe
Hydraulic dredging
- Plain suction
- Cutterhead
- Dustpan
Pneumatic dredging
- Airlift
- Pneuma
- Oozer
• Sediment turbidity controls and containment
- Curtain barriers
- Coffer dams
- Pneumatic barriers
- Capping
G. In Situ Treatment
Hydrolysis
Oxidation
Reduction
Soil aeration
Solvent flushing
Neutralization
Polymerization
Sulfide precipitation
Bioreclamat ion
Permeable treatment beds
Chemical dechlorination
(continued)
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-2. (continued)
H. Direct Waste Treatment
• Incineration
- Rotary kiln
- Fluidized bed
- Multiple hearth
- Liquid injection
- Molten salt
- High temperature fluid wall
- Plasma arc pyrolysis
- Cement kiln
- Pyrolysis/starved combustion
- Wet air oxidation
- Industrial boiler or furnace
• Gaseous waste treatment
- Activated carbon
- Flares
- Afterburners
• Treatment of aqueous and liquid waste streams
Biological treatment
- Activated sludge
- Trickling filters
- Aerated lagoons
- Waste stabilization ponds
- Rotating biological disks
- Fluidized bed bioreactors
Chemical treatment
- Neutralization
- Precipitation
- Oxidation
- Hydrolysis
- Reduction
- Chemical dechlorination
- Ultraviolet/ozonation
(continued)
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-2. (continued)
Physical treatment
- Flow equalization
- Flocculation
- Sedimentation
- Activated carbon
- Kleensorb
- Ion exchange
- Reverse osmosis
- Liquid-liquid extraction
- Oil-water separator
- Steam distillation
- Air stripping
- Steam stripping
- Filtration
- Dissolved air flotation
Discharge to a publicy owned treatment works
Solids handling and treatment
Dewatering
- Screens, hydraulic classifiers, scalpers
- Centrifuges
- Gravity thickening
- Flocculation, sedimentation
- Belt filter presses
- Filter presses
- Drying or dewatering beds
- Vacuum-assisted drying beds
Treatment
- Neutralization
- Solvent
- Oxidation
- Reduction
- Composting
Solidification, stabilization, or fixation
- Cement-based
(continued)
2-13
-------
TABLE 2-2. (continued)
- Lime-based
- Thermoplastic
- Organic polymer
- Self-cementing techniques
- Surface encapsulation
- Classification
- Solidification (i.e., to fly ash, polymers, sawdust)
I. Land Disposal Storage
Landfills
Surface impoundments
Land application
Waste piles
Deep well injection
Temporary storage
J. Contaminated Water Supplies and Sewer Lines
• In situ cleaning
• Removal and replacement
• Alternative drinking water supplies
- Cisterns or tanks
- Deeper or upgradient wells
- Municipal water systems
- Relocation of intake
• Individual treatment units
2-14
-------
TABLE 2-3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY
AFFECT REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY SELECTION
Site volume
Site area
Site configuration
Disposal methods
Climate (precipitation,
temperature, evaporation)
Soil texture and permeability
Soil moisture
Slope
Drainage
Vegetation
Depth of bedrock
Depth to aquicludes
Degree of contamination
Direction and rate of
ground water flow
Receptors
Drinking water wells
Surface waters
Ecological areas
Existing land use
Depths of ground water or plume
TABLE 2-4. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY AFFECT
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY SELECTION
Quantity/concentration
Chemical composition
Acute toxicity
Persistence
Biodegradability
Radioactivity
Ignitability
Reactivity/corrosivity
Infectiousness
Solubility
Volatility
Density
Partition coefficient
Compatibility with other chemicals
Treatability
2-15
-------
Evaluation of Remedial Responses" presents one such approach, with
screening tables showing site, waste, and technology limitations for
remedial alternatives under each general class. The manual also has a
checklist for tracking technologies not excluded by the limitations given in
the tables. This and similar methodologies, however, should serve only as
guides for screening. They cannot substitute for acceptable engineering
practice in screening technologies.
The user should give special consideration to technologies that perman-
ently contain, immobilize, destroy, or recycle contaminants, and technolo-
gies that promote energy recovery. Also, certain technologies often are
used in combination, and the user should have a working knowledge of those
technologies. EPA is currently drafting guidance for the consideration of
these technologies.
2.4 DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES BY COMBINING TECHNOLOGIES
Technologies that have passed the technology screening can be used to
form more definite alternatives.
In developing remedial alternatives, the user should rely on acceptable
engineering practice to determine which of the screened technologies appear
most suitable for the site. Consideration should be given to recycle,
reuse, waste minimization, destruction, or other advanced, innovative, or
alternative technologies, if appropriate. The user should document the
reasons for excluding technologies that passed the technology screening.
The user should also consider relevant and applicable standards listed in
Table 5-2 in selecting and combining technologies into alternatives to
achieve specific cleanup goals.
As part of the feasibility study (FS), at least one alternative for
each of the following must, at a minimum, be evaluated within the require-
ments of the feasibility study guidance and presented to the decisionmaker
(the FS report should discuss those situations where no feasible alternative
can be identified for a given category):
(a) Alternatives for treatment or disposal at an off-site facility
approved by EPA (including RCRA, TSCA* CWA, CAA, MPRSA, and SDWA
approved facilities), as appropriate;
In preparation.
These alternatives must be consistent with EPA Policy "Procedures for
Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions" (see Appendix B). In
some cases, off-site disposal or treatment may not be feasible and this
alternative may be eliminated during initial screening of alternatives.
The decision documents should reflect this screening.
2-16
-------
(b) Alternatives which attain applicable and relevant Federal public
health or environmental standards;
(c) As appropriate, alternatives which exceed applicable and relevant
public health or environmental standards;
(d) Alternatives which do not attain applicable or relevant public
health or environmental standards but will reduce the likelihood
of present or future threat from the hazardous substances. This
must include an alternative which closely approaches the level of
protection provided by the applicable or relevant standards and
meets CERCLA's objective of adequately protecting public health,
welfare, and environment.
(e) A no action alternative.
Since ground water contamination is the most frequent type of problem
at NPL sites, the corrective action requirements of Subpart F of the RCRA
regulations (40 CFR Part 264) will be applicable or relevant in many cases
and should be included in alternatives developed under category (b). Under
the RCRA regulations, corrective actions must attain a ground water cleanup
standard established for each facility. For a limited number of
potential contaminants, a standard is specified in the regulations at levels
corresponding to National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards developed
pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. An alternate concentration limit
(ACL) may be established for any contaminant upon a determination that the
ACL will "not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health
or the environment as long as the alternate concentration limit is not
exceeded" [40 CFR 264.94(b)l- In the absence of an ACL or a standard based
on Safe Drinking Water Act determinations, the ground water protection stan-
dard is background. The RI/FS should examine whether an ACL is appropriate
at each site where the Subpart F regulations are applicable or relevant.
Generally, ACLs can be based on a demonstration that there is a lack of
exposure or that levels of exposure are adequate to protect human health.
In considering ACLs, it is appropriate to consider attenuation, degradation,
and dilution of the contaminants before they reach possible receptors.
Engineering approaches can be used to augment natural dilution and
attenuation processes. Additionally, institutional controls to assure that
ground water within the current or probable reach of the plume of
contamination will not be withdrawn, or will be withdrawn only at points at
which contaminants are at concentrations that are safe, may be considered as
a basis for controlling exposure. In conjunction with the controls
described above, there may be limited circumstances where treatment of the
water before use can be guaranteed as a means of preventing exposure to
harmful levels. The decision criterion is in all cases, however, whether an
alternate concentration level will pose a substantial hazard to human health
or the environment. Alternatives that do not meet the RCRA Subpart F
requirements for background MCLs or ACLs but significantly reduce public
health threats (for example engineering controls to attenuate or dilute
concentrations to acceptable levels at the receptor point) should be
presented in category (d).
2-17
-------
Since the RCRA ground-water protection program is relatively new,
experience to date in implementing alternate concentration limits is
limited. Needed additional guidance is being prepared for Regional use.
This guidance will discuss factors and conditions that may be used in
evaluating alternate concentration limits.
In some cases, there may be some overlap between the alternatives
developed. A single alternative may fit more than one category, and several
alternatives may be developed for each category. Furthermore, alternatives
may be developed that, through changes in the design, fit more than one of
the categories. For example, an alternative that attains applicable or
relevant Federal standards [category (b)] may fall in category (c) through
relatively minor design or operation modifications.
The development of alternatives is closely related to the institutional
review process discussed in chapter 4. The user should refer to chapter 4
for appropriate institutional requirements that must be considered when
developing remedial alternatives.
The alternatives developed must also be re-evaluated during the public
health evaluation dicussed in chapter 5, specifically, after completion of
the exposure assessment (section 5.3) and comparison of environmental con-
centrations to applicable and relevant standards (section 5.4). Alterna-
tives in categories (b) and (c) above may need to be modified if different
pathways or exposure concerns are identified.
The NCP specifies that remedial alternatives, besides filling each of
the categories, should be classified either as source control [40 CFR
300.68(e)(2)] or off-site (management of migration) remedial actions [40 CFR
300.68(e)(3)]. The distinction significantly affects the level of detail
necessary in evaluating remedies. Source control remedial actions address
situations in which hazardous substances remain at or near the areas in
which they were originally located and are not adequately contained to
prevent migration into the environment. Off-site remedial actions address
situations in which the hazardous substances have largely migrated from
their original locations. Off-site actions are now referred to as manage-
ment of migration actions, to distinguish actions involving management of
migration from those involving hazardous substance removal and disposal in
off-site facilities. Alternatives developed may fall solely in either
classification or may involve a combination of source control and management
of migration measures, as determined by the specific site problems
addressed.
2.4.1 Source Control Remedies
The purpose of source control remedies is to prevent or minimize
migration of hazardous substances from the source material. These remedies
may be applied to situations in which contaminants are in the soil, a
lagoon, or a.pond. The extent and route of the release and/or the threat of
release must be documented to justify specific source control measures.
2-18
-------
Source control measures seek to completely remove, stabilize, and/or contain
the hazardous substances. Source control measures may be used in many
situations where they will curtail further risk to humans or the environ-
ment. In these cases, only a limited public health assessment may be neces-
sary in selecting a cost-effective remedy.
Where preventing migration appears infeasible, measures that will
reduce future migration from the source should be considered. In these
cases, a more extensive analysis will be necessary to select a cost-
effective remedy that adequately protects public health. Chapters 5 and 6
address the considerations involved in these analyses. In such situations,
management of migration measures should be considered in conjunction with
source control measures .
Where a source control alternative involves off-site treatment [an
alternative in category (a)], destruction, or disposal of wastes following
removal, section 300.70(c) of the NCP requires that EPA determine that this
alternative is either "(1) more cost-effective than other remedial actions;
(2) will create new [waste management] capacity...; or (3) is necessary to
protect [human health and the environment]...." To aid in this evaluation,
the user must, in those instances where an off-site transport, treatment,
storage, or disposal alternative is among the list of response actions,
include a comparable on-site alternative for evaluation. For example, when
off-site disposal at a landfill approved under RCRA is among the alterna-
tives to be evaluated, construction of such a landfill on the site should be
evaluated as well.
2.4.2 Management of Migration Remedies
Management of migration remedial actions are necessary where hazardous
substances have migrated from the original source of contamination and pose
a significant threat to public health, welfare, or the environment; for
example, where contamination exceeds relevant and applicable public health
or environmental standards, guidance, and advisories. Any management of
migration measure that adequately protects public health, welfare, and the
environment (by reducing contaminant levels) should be considered for imple-
mentation. Particular consideration should be given to technologies that
permanently contain, immobilize, destroy, or recycle contaminants.
An example of a site at which management of migration action may be
appropriate would be one at which a contaminated ground water plume has
moved downgradient from the site, beyond site boundaries, and is threatening
private drinking water wells. At such a site, management of migration
measures such as aquifer pumping and treatment may be appropriate.
Management of migration alternatives may also involve measures that
prevent or minimize impacts through means such as substitution. An example
of such an alternative would be provision of an alternative drinking water
source in cases where ground water contamination threatens private welj.s.
2-19
-------
2.5 SCREEN ALTERNATIVES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND COST FACTORS
The next step involves screening of remedial alternatives based on
environmental and public health criteria, followed by an "order of
magnitude" cost screening. This two-step screening permits an initial
assessment of the applicability of each alternative relative to the others.
This process eliminates alternatives that do not provide adequate
protection of public health, welfare, and the environment, and those that
are much more costly than others without providing significantly greater
protection. When alternatives are eliminated from further consideration,
the feasibility study must document the rationale for excluding each alter-
native.
In some situations, screening may eliminate all alternatives in one of
the five categories listed above under Section 2.4, "Develop Alternatives by
Combining Technologies." When this occurs, at least one alternative for the
category that was eliminated must be included in the summary of alternatives
presentation described in chapter 8 and should be presented to the decision-
maker with an explanation as to why it was eliminated at the screening
stage.
2.5.1 Environmental and Public Health Screening
The user should identify adverse impacts on the environment or on
public health and welfare that may preclude the use of each assembled
alternative. Alternatives that may have significant adverse impacts or do
not adequately protect the environment and public health should be
eliminated. At this point, adequate protection should be thought of as a
comprehensive response that addresses all pathways and points of exposure.
The user should identify alternatives that provide similar environmental and
public health and welfare benefits in preparation for the cost screening.
2.5.2 Cost Screening Factors
The object of the cost screening is to eliminate alternatives that have
costs an order of magnitude greater than those of other alternatives but do
not provide greater environmental or public health benefits or greater
reliability.
In preparing cost estimates for screening, certain limiting factors
should be considered to control the level of effort expended in compiling
the estimates. These factors include accessibility of data sources, the
time available, and the degree of accuracy to be achieved. The following
2-20
-------
guidelines are recommended for use when defining the level of effort in cost
screening:
• Data sources should be limited to the "Remedial Actions Cost
Compendium" (ELI, 1984), Handbook: Remedial Action at Waste
Disposal Sites (U.S. EPA, 1982), the remedial investigation (for
revising design assumptions where necessary), standard costs
indices, and other readily available information.
• The time for preparing screening cost estimates should be limited to
a few days.
• The objective in calculating the costs is to achieve an accuracy
within -50 to +100 percent.
Cost screening should be undertaken for all remedial alternatives
remaining from the public health and environmental screening. The cost
screening can be divided into three basic tasks: (1) estimation of costs,
(2) present worth analysis, and (3) cost screening evaluation.
2.5.2.1 Estimation of Costs
Remedial alternatives are screened on the basis of both capital costs
and operating and maintenance costs. These costs should reflect site-
specific conditions and should be revised using the cost compendium (ELI,
1984) or other standard cost guidance references.
Capital costs should include the following:
• Relocation costs
• Costs of land acquisition or obtaining permanent easements
• Land and site development costs
• Costs of buildings and services
• Equipment costs
• Replacement costs
• Disposal costs
• Engineering expenses
• Construction expenses
• State and local legal fees, licenses, and permit costs
• Contingency allowances
• Startup and shake-down costs
• Costs of anticipated health and safety requirements during
construction.
2-21
-------
Care should be taken to ensure that all applicable cost components are
considered in the capital cost estimate.
Operation and maintenance costs should include, where applicable, the
following:
• Operating labor costs
• Maintenance materials and labor costs
• Costs of auxiliary materials and energy
• Purchased service costs
• Administrative costs
• Insurance, taxes, and licensing costs
• A maintenance reserve and contingency fund.
Care should be taken to ensure that all of these cost components are con-
sidered. Vendor quotes are not generally available at this stage of the
analysis, because technical information and time are limited. Since site-
and remedy-specific factors determine the degree to which each category of
cost is required at a given site, it will be useful for the cost analyst to
develop a checklist of site- and remedy-specific cost considerations before
attempting the cost estimate. Such cost considerations are suggested in the
"Remedial Actions Cost Compendium" (ELI, 1984). If necessary, cost
estimates should be updated to current values using standard cost indices.
Procedures for updating cost estimates are discussed in chapter 7.
2.5.2.2 Present Worth Analysis
After developing screening cost data, the user must determine the
present worth of both the capital and other expenditures. Discounting to
present worth is necessary when operation and maintenance costs are
anticipated for one or more alternatives. Present worth (or present value)
analysis enables the user to compare sets of costs by computing the current
value of all costs incurred, whether they are incurred in the present or at
some future date. The present worth analysis conducted during screening
relies on less refined cost data but is otherwise identical to the present
worth analysis conducted during detailed cost estimation. This analysis
should be based on the OMB-prescribed 10 percent discount rate. However, a
quick calculation of alternative discount rates may be desirable (e.g., 4 or
7 percent) to observe sensitivity of overall estimates to discount rates.
This check is most useful' in cases that involve future replacement costs.
The procedures for conducting a present worth analysis are discussed in
detail in the EPA "Costing Procedures Manual."
Q
In preparation.
2-22
-------
In some cases, wastes removed from a site, such as fuel oils or other
hydrocarbons, may be recoverable. In such cases, revenues from the sale of
removed materials should be considered in the present worth analysis.
2.5.2.3 Cost Screening Evaluation
The user should compare present worth costs of competing alternatives
with similar environmental, public health, and public welfare benefits.
Alternatives should be eliminated if they are deemed much more expensive (an
order of magnitude or more) and offer similar or smaller environmental and
public health benefits but no greater reliability than competing alterna-
tives. Alternatives that are more expensive but offer substantially greater
environmental and/or health benefits should not be eliminated.
2-23
-------
-------
CHAPTER 3
CONDUCT A DETAILED TECHNICAL EVALUATION
One of the first concerns in the detailed analysis of alternatives is
that suggested technologies are appropriate to site conditions. Section
300.68(i) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
(NCP) requires the following:
(i) Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
(1) A more detailed evaluation will be conducted of the limited
number of alternatives that remain after the initial
screening....
(2) The detailed analysis of each alternative should include:
(A) Refinement and specification of alternatives in detail,
with emphasis on the use of established technology....
(C) Evaluation in terms of engineering implementation, or
constructability....
(E) An analysis of...methods for mitigating [adverse
environmental] impacts ....
Each remedial alternative is evaluated for performance, reliability,
implementability, and safety. EPA's publication "Methodology for Screening
and Evaluation of Remedial Responses," the Army Corps of Engineers'
Engineer Manual "Preliminary Guidelines for Selection and Design of Remedial
Systems for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites" (EC 1110-2-244), and the EPA
"Handbook for Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites" (1982) provide useful
information. The resulting estimates of alternatives' technical feasibility
are included in the summary of alternatives discussed in chapter 8. The
elements of technical feasibility are discussed, and a suggested format for
summarizing these evaluations is presented in the remainder of this chapter.
federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 137, July 16, 1982.
2
In preparation.
3-1
-------
3.1 PERFORMANCE
Two aspects of remedial actions determine their desirability on the
basis of performance: effectiveness and useful life. Effectiveness refers
to the degree to which an action will prevent or minimize substantial danger
to public health, welfare, or the environment. The useful life is the
length of time this level of effectiveness can be maintained.
3.1.1 Effectiveness
Remedial alternatives should be evaluated in terms of their ability to
perform intended functions, such as containment, diversion, removal,
destruction, or treatment. The effectiveness of alternatives should be
determined either through design specifications or by performance evalu-
ation. These two methods are discussed further below and in chapter 5 with
respect to evaluations of public health protection.
The user should establish which environmental and public health stand-
ards are relevant or applicable at the site and evaluate proposed alterna-
tives according to those standards. In evaluating alternatives, the user
may institute changes that improve them. Relevant and applicable standards
and guidelines for use in performing these evaluations are presented in
chapter 5, the public health section, and chapter 6, the environmental
chapter. Response alternatives should use these standards developed by
other EPA programs as design and/or performance specifications, or consider
appropriate criteria and guidance. If such criteria are substantially
adjusted (e.g., for risk level or exposure factors), the basis for the
adjustment must be clearly stated (see chapters 4 and 5).
Any special site or waste conditions that affect performance should be
considered, and the design should be tailored to accommodate those condi-
tions. The evaluation should also consider the effectiveness of combinations
of technologies. Specifications should be based on ASTM, AASHTO, or other
appropriate engineering standards, if applicable.
Standards, criteria, or guidance are not available for all situations
at hazardous waste sites; in these cases, performance specifications based
on acceptable engineering practice must be developed and used in evaluating
alternatives. The user should give preference to those technologies that
completely immobilize, destroy, or recycle the hazardous material, or pro-
mote energy recovery.
The evaluation of on-site alternatives should include an analysis of
locational factors that could impact effectiveness. These factors include:
• Ground-water considerations such as aquifer classification (see
section 4.3)
• Floodpiain impacts
3-2
-------
• Seismic, landslide, subsidence, or volcanic impacts
• Site geology (for example, is the site underlain by fractured
bedrock or karst topography).
These factors should be considered to determine if on-site alternatives can
be effective. Engineering modifications may be necessary to mitigate
adverse locational impacts, if appropriate.
3.1.2 Useful Life
Most remedial technologies, with the possible exception of destruction,
deteriorate with time. Often, deterioration can be slowed through proper
operation and maintenance, but the technology eventually may require re-
placement. Each alternative should be evaluated in terms of the projected
service lives of its component technologies. Resource availability in the
future life of the technology, as well as the appropriateness of the tech-
nologies, must be considered in estimating the useful life of the project.
3.2 RELIABILITY
The cost of installing and operating remedial alternatives and the
importance of protecting public health and the environment make reliability
a serious concern. Two aspects of remedial technologies that provide infor-
mation about reliability are their operation and maintenance requirements
and their demonstrated reliability at similar sites.
3.2.1 Operation and Maintenance Requirements
Evaluations of the operation and maintenance requirements of remedial
alternatives should emphasize the availability of labor and materials as
well as their costs. Also, the frequency and complexity of necessary opera-
tion and maintenance should be considered in evaluating the reliability of
alternatives. Technologies requiring frequent or complex operation and
maintenance activities should be regarded as less reliable than technologies
requiring little or straightforward operation and maintenance.
3.2.2 Demonstrated Performance
The technical analysis of remedial alternatives should not be based on
the presumed performance of untested methods. An estimate of the probabili-
ty of failure, in either qualitative or quantitative terms, should be made
for each component technology and for the complete alternative. The user
should give preference to technologies that have proven effective under
3-3
-------
waste and site conditions similar to those anticipated. However, innovative
or advanced technology should be evaluated as an alternative to conventional
technology, if appropriate. Sometimes bench-scale studies will be necessary
to determine actual performance characteristics; these studies may be part
of the remedial investigation or the design phase.
As more experience is gained in applying and developing remedial tech-
nologies, a broader range of activities will have demonstrated performance.
At present, many technologies are still in the research and development
stages. If such developmental technologies are included in suggested
remedial alternatives, the user should be certain to include information
from researchers supporting its use and evaluating its expected reliability.
3.3 IMPLEMENTABILITY
Another important aspect of remedial alternatives is their implement-
ability—the relative ease of installation and the time required to achieve
a given level of response. Ease of installation, often known as construct-
ability, is determined by conditions both internal and external to the site.
The time requirements can be generally classified as the time required to
implement a technology and the time required before results are actually
realized.
3.3.1 Constructability
3.3.1.1 Site Conditions
The constructability of remedial technologies under actual site condi-
tions is fundamental to the technical analysis of alternatives. The ability
to actually build, construct, or implement the remedial technology on the
site must be assessed.
3.3.1.2 Conditions External to the Site
Conditions external to the site that affect the implementability of
remedial technologies include the availability and acceptability of off-site
disposal sites and the equipment available for construction.
Certain remedial activities may require zoning clearances and local
permits in addition to compliance with applicable State and Federal regula-
tions. Chapter 4 discusses some of these statutes in more detail. In
addition, the public acceptability of the alternative can be of fundamental
importance in determining the implementability of the action.
3-4
-------
3.3.2 Time
The time element of remedial efforts is an important aspect of site
remedial planning. Emphasis should be on quickly eliminating exposure to
hazardous substances. Two measures of time that should be addressed are the
time it takes to implement a remedy and the time it takes to realize bene-
ficial effects. The importance of timing depends on the nature of the
hazard; speed is most important at sites presenting immediate, rather than
long-term, hazards.
3.3.2.1 Time to Implement
Implementation time includes the time it takes for special studies,
design, construction, and any other technical steps that may be required for
implementation. Implementation time estimates should take account of
weather conditions, unanticipated site conditions, and necessary safety
precautions. The user should evaluate alternatives in terms of the most
likely construction schedule, based on experience at-similar sites or on
a standard engineering procedure like critical path analysis.
3.3.2.2 Time to Achieve Beneficial Results
Some remedial alternatives achieve instantaneous results (e.g., surface
cleanup or the provision of alternative water supplies). Often, though,
considerable time is required from the beginning of construction until the
desired results are achieved. During this period, ancillary measures, such
as the temporary provision of alternative potable water supplies or tem-
porary relocation, are commonly taken to mitigate the threat. The user
should evaluate each alternative in terms of the time it takes to see bene-
ficial results in the environment, exclusive of measures that provide tem-
porary protection. Beneficial results should be defined as the reduction in
levels of contamination necessary to attain or exceed relevant or applicable
standards. RCRA standards for corrective action require meeting background
MCLs or ACLs within a reasonable period of time. While no specific length
of time has been specified, the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste considers
several years to be reasonable, depending on specific site conditions.
Where no applicable or relevant standards are available, the user should
consult headquarters on a case-by-case basis for further guidance; final
guidance is under development for such situations.
3.4 SAFETY
Each remedial alternative should be evaluated with regard to safety.
This evaluation should include short-term and long-term threats to the
safety of nearby communities and environments as well as those to workers
3-5
-------
during implementation. Major risks to consider are fire, explosion, and
exposure to hazardous substances resulting due to both on-site and off-site
activities during remedial action implementation.
The joint guidelines of the EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH), or the Corps of Engineers guidance, prepared to ensure
the health and safety of workers at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, may
be used to determine the risk to worker health and safety during implementa-
tion. Alternatives should be designed to minimize risk during construction
and should be evaluated in terms of such safety.
3.5 SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Table 3-1 will help the user evaluate alternatives based on
performance, reliability, implementability, and safety. The user should
assess site conditions that affect constructability and set design and/or
siting criteria for successful construction.
The user should explicitly evaluate the technical characteristics of
the components of the alternative as well as those of the entire alterna-
tive; measures that aggregate many factors cannot ,be used effectively in
distinguishing between alternatives with similar general characteristics.
In Table 3-1, alternatives are listed in the left column. Each alter-
native is described in terms of its component technologies, indicated for
example by "A-l", "A-2", and so on, of alternative "A." For example,
alternative "A" may consist of site capping, diversion ditches, a slurry
wall, ground-water pumping, and treatment of the effluent. The user should
describe the absolute degree to which each alternative or technology meets
each criterion. In addition, the user may also describe the alternatives
and technologies in order of their relative desirability with respect to
each criterion. The user should provide a consistent description of any
outstanding features that render the technology particularly desirable or
any limitations that may hinder its use for remedial action at the site.
Where possible, quantitative descriptions should be provided so that
absolute incremental differences in the alternatives can be discerned.
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-1. SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION
Remedial Alternative Criterion
Per formance Reliability
Remedial Effectiveness Useful Life Operation and Possible
Alternatives Maintenance Requirements Fa I lure Modes
A
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
Remarks: Alternative A summary
B
B-1
B-2
B-3
Remarks: Alternative B summary
C
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
Remarks: Alternative C summary
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1. (continued)
Imp I amentab!IIty
Constructabi I Ity
Time
Site Conditions
Conditions To Implement
External to Site
To See Desired Results
U)
00
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
Remarks: Alternative A summary
B
B-1
B-2
B-3
Remarks: Alternative B summary
C
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
Remarks: Alternative C summary
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-1. (continued)
Safety
Considerations
Worker Health and Safety
Neighboring Facilities
& Communities
U>
I
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
Remarks: Alternative A summary
B
B-1
B-2
B-3
Remarks: Alternative B summary
C
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
Remarks: Alternative C summary
-------
-------
CHAPTER 4
EVALUATE INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
This chapter describes current EPA policy on the use of applicable and
relevant standards and other criteria, guidance, and advisories at Super fund
remedial sites. The user should be aware that this policy is subject to
change and further interpretation with regard to specific standards, and
should consult supplemental policy and program guidance documents that will
be issued as this policy is developed. If any questions about specific
applications of this policy arise, the user should consult EPA headquarters.
This chapter also discusses other institutional issues in analyzing
remedial alternatives, such as coordination with other Federal agencies and
community relations.
4.1 OVERVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
It is EPA policy that, in selecting remedial actions, primary consider-
ation be given to remedies that attain applicable or relevant Federal envi-
ronmental and public health standards. State and local standards should be
considered; however, State standards that are more stringent than Federal
standards may form the basis for a remedy only if the result is consistent
with the cost-effective remedy based on Federal standards. (The State will
generally be required to pay for the additional cost where more restrictive
State standards are used.) EPA does not require that environmental permits
be obtained for Fund-financed or enforcement actions taken at a site
pursuant to sections 104 or 106 of CERCLA. However, States and private
parties are not precluded from obtaining permits. In contrast, all off-site
removal, treatment, storage, or disposal actions must be in compliance with
other environmental laws, including permit requirements.
The user should evaluate the effects of Federal, State, and local
standards and other institutional considerations on the design, operation,
and timing of each alternative. In general, it is expected that regulatory
programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Safe
This chapter reflects a policy on the applicability of other environmental
programs to actions under CERCLA. This policy is subject to the final
rulemaking of the proposed amendments to the NCP, and this chapter is
therefore presented as interim guidance.
4-1
-------
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(Clean Water Act or CWA) , will have the broadest applications to remedial
action alternatives.
Results of the institutional analysis of each remedial alternative are
to be presented, in tabular or narrative form, in the feasibility study as
part of the noncost criteria analysis of the remedial action alternatives
(see chapter 9). All applicable or relevant public health and environmental
standards, interagency coordination needs, and other institutional issues
should be identified.
This chapter is not intended to serve in lieu of regulations and
policies implementing particular statutory requirements. The user should
consult the appropriate regulations and policies to determine these require-
ments .
4.2 CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
EPA policy on the use of environmental and public health standards at
Superfund sites is under development. The draft policy discussed in this
chapter is outlined in the EPA policy memorandum "CERCLA Compliance with the
Requirements of Other Environmental Statutes" (Appendix C). The key re-
quirements of this policy have been incorporated in the proposed revisions
to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP).
It is EPA policy to comply with "applicable or relevant" environmental
and public health standards in CERCLA remedial actions unless one of five
specific circumstances described in section 4.2.1 exists, and to document
all analyses of these circumstances. Other regulations, advisories, and
guidance may be considered in developing CERCLA remedies. Relevant portions
may be used; if they are not used, the reasons for not using them must be
stated-in the decision documents. The memorandum defines "applicable" and
"relevant" and includes a preliminary list of requirements that would be
considered applicable or relevant, and a list of other requirements,
advisories, and guidance that should be considered. The final section of
this chapter summarizes, in table form, the requirements identified to date.
Permits are not required for on-site Fund-financed or enforcement
actions taken under CERCLA. They are required for off-site disposal actions
(those involving removal and treatment, disposal, or destruction of wastes
in off-site facilities). Off-site actions and their permit requirements
include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Injection into an underground formation requires an Underground
Injection Control permit.
• Transportation of hazardous waste to an off-site treatment, storage,
or disposal facility (TSDF) requires RCRA TSDF permits.
4-2
-------
• Discharge of pollutants or contaminants from a point source into
U.S. waters requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit pursuant to CWA section 402.
• Disposal, treatment, or destruction of hazardous waste at sea
requires permits under the Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).
• Discharge of pollutant contaminants into a publicly owned treatment
works (FOTW) may require permits issued by the local POTW.
• Emissions of pollutants to the air may require Clean Air Act (CAA)
permits, depending on the substance emitted, its quantity, and the
classification of the area.
The responsible party or State must obtain the appropriate permits or assure
that they are obtained; State responsibilities will be specified in the con-
tract or cooperative agreement.
As explained in chapter 2, the feasibility study must examine and
present to the decisionmaker at least one alternative in each of the
following categories, if feasible:
• Alternatives for treatment or disposal at an off-site facility
approved by EPA (including RCRA, TSCA, MPRSA, CWA, CAA, and SDWA
approved facilities), as appropriate (for cost-effectiveness
comparison purposes, this alternative must be compared to an on-site
treatment or disposal alternative);
• Alternatives which attain applicable and relevant Federal public
health or environmental standards;
• As appropriate, alternatives which exceed applicable or relevant
public health or environmental standards;
• Alternatives which do not attain applicable or relevant public
health or environmental standards but will reduce the likelihood of
present or future threat from the hazardous substances. This must
include an alternative which closely approaches the level of protec-
tion provided by the applicable or relevant standards and meets
2
These alternatives must be consistent with EPA's policy "Procedures for
Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions." In some cases,
off-site disposal or treatment may not be feasible and this alternative
may be eliminated during initial screening of alternatives. The decision
documents should reflect this screening (see Appendix B).
4-3
-------
CERCLA's objectives of adequately protecting public health, welfare,
and environment.
• A no action alternative.
In some cases these alternatives may overlap.
4.2.1 Selection of Remedy
The decisionmaker will consider all of the alternatives arrayed in the
feasibility study and will give primary consideration to remedies that
attain or exceed applicable or relevant Federal public health and environ-
mental standards. The decisionmaker may select an on-site alternative that
does not attain applicable or relevant standards in one or more of the
circumstances discussed below. A consideration in making this determination
is the extent to which the standard was intended to apply to the specific
conditions at the site. For example, the RCRA program was not intended to
regulate a site consisting of 210 miles of roadside contaminated by indis-
criminant disposal of PCB wastes, or one consisting of a river bed contam-
inated with hazardous substances. If the recommended alternative involves
an EPA standard, guidance, or advisory beyond the direct requirements of
CERCLA, the decisionmaker will ensure coordination with all affected EPA
programs.
The following specific circumstances are those in which the
decisionmaker may select an on-site alternative that does not comply fully
with applicable or relevant standards:
1. The selected alternative is not the final remedy and will become
part of a more comprehensive remedy;
2. All of the alternatives which meet applicable or relevant standards
fall into one or more of the following categories:
(i) Fund-balancing - for Fund-financed actions only; exercise
the Fund-balancing provisions of CERCLA section 104(c)(4);
(ii) Technical impracticability - it is technically impracticable
from an engineering perspective to achieve the standard at
the specific site in question;
(iii) Unacceptable environmental impacts - All alternatives that
attain or exceed standards would cause unacceptable damage
to the environment; or,
3. Where the remedy is to be carried out pursuant to CERCLA section
106; the Hazardous Response Trust Fund is unavailable, or would not
4-4
-------
be used; there is a strong public interest in expedited cleanup;
and the litigation probably would not result in the desired remedy.
Where one of these situations is present, the decisionmaker may select
an alternative which does not attain or exceed applicable or relevant public
health or environmental standards. The basis for not meeting the standard
must be fully documented and explained in the appropriate decision docu-
ments .
The Agency anticipates that most CERCLA remedial actions will attain or
exceed applicable or relevant public health or environmental standards.
However, where the specific circumstances discussed above preclude the
selection of a remedy that attains standards, the decisionmaker will select
the alternative that most closely approaches the level of protection pro-
vided by the applicable or relevant standard, considering the reasons for
not meeting that standard.
EPA also will use public health and environmental criteria in
developing appropriate remedial alternatives. If the decisionmaker deter-
mines that such criteria are relevant, but are not used in the selected
remedial alternative, the decision documents will indicate the basis for not
using the criteria. Where no relevant or applicable standards are avail-
able, the user should consult headquarters on a case-by-case basis for
guidance. In general, headquarters will instruct the user to develop at
least one option corresponding to a 10 .risk level. In addition, reason-
able alternatives corresponding to a 10 to 10 risk level should also be
developed.
For Fund-financed actions, where State standards are part of the cost-
effective remedy, the Fund will pay to attain those standards. Where the
cost-effective remedy does not include those State standards, the State may
pay the difference to attain them.
There may be situations in which the decisionmaker may select a remedy
that exceeds a standard, rather than simply attaining it, if under the
circumstances it is appropriate to select a more protective level. For
example, a land disposal alternative may have a lower present worth than a
treatment alternative, however, the treatment alternative may more effec-
tively protect public health and the environment. This selection process
must be determined on a site-specific basis.
State environmental standards, guidance, or advisories should also be
addressed. States have an important role in developing remedial alterna-
tives. If a State desires the selection of a remedial action that would
incorporate State standards more stringent than Federal standards, the
decisionmaker may select that remedy. Generally, the State is expected to
pay any additional costs.
4-5
-------
Changes will also be made in the Superfund community relations program
as part of this policy to ensure public involvement equivalent to that in
other permitting programs. These modifications are discussed in section 4.6
below.
The CERCLA enforcement program will also enhance public participation,
in the cases of both consent decrees and administrative orders, to substan-
tial equivalence with that in Fund-financed actions. Furthermore, consent
decrees and administrative orders will incorporate recordkeeping and moni-
toring requirements similar to those mandated by other environmental pro-
grams .
This policy applies only to response actions taken pursuant to the
Fund-financed or enforcement provisions of CERCLA.
4.3 EPA GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY
EPA has developed the Ground-Water Protection Strategy (GWPS) to help
State and Federal agencies cope with ground-water problems and to improve
the coherence and.consistency of EPA programs dealing with ground water.
The GWPS is not considered at this time to fall in the category of relevant
or applicable standards, but it should be considered when deciding on reme-
dial alternatives. The Agency is planning to incorporate provisions of the
Ground-Water Protection Strategy into future regulatory amendments. At that
time, those provisions may become relevant or applicable.
The GWPS has four elements, keyed to specific objectives:
1. Strengthening State ground-water programs: Funds will be set aside
to support State ground-water program development and provide
technical assistance to the States. Funds will be provided to the
States, through existing grant programs, to support the development
of overall State action plans or strategies; identify and remove
legal and institutional impediments to comprehensive State manage-
ment; develop general and source-specific ground-water programs;
and create a data system to increase the accessibility and quality
of information. EPA will continue to support a strong research
program to assist both Federal and State protection efforts.
3
Not applicable to enforcement actions.
4-6
-------
2. Treating unaddressed ground-water problems: EPA will identify,
evaluate, and develop means of coping with unaddressed ground-water
problems including leaking underground storage tanks and non-
hazardous surface impoundments and landfills. The Agency will
increase efforts to protect ground water from contamination by
nitrates or pesticides. EPA will also prepare a ground-water
monitoring strategy to facilitate the evaluation of ground-water
contamination from all sources.
3. Creating a policy framework for EPA programs: EPA will adopt guide-
lines for consistency in ground-water protection programs. These
guidelines will protect ground water for the highest present or
potential beneficial use. The guidelines will use existing statutes
to define an appropriate protection strategy for three classes of
ground water:
• Class 1, Special Ground Waters, includes those highly vulnerable
to contamination and either irreplaceable or ecologically vital
sources of drinking water.
• Class 2, Current and Potential Sources of Drinking Water and
Waters Having Other Beneficial Uses, includes all other ground
waters currently used or potentially available for drinking
water or other beneficial uses.
• Class 3, Ground Water Not a Potential Source of Drinking Water
and of Limited Beneficial Use, includes saline or otherwise
contaminated ground waters beyond reasonable use for drinking
water or other beneficial purposes. Ground water in Class 3
must not be connected to Class 1 or 2 ground water or to surface
water in a way that would allow contaminants to migrate to these
waters, with potential adverse effects on human health or the
environment.
The guidelines will be implemented by the development of specific
requirements in each major program area. The resulting standards
will be general and performance-oriented to allow flexibility for
States in implementing EPA—delegated programs.
4. Strengthening EPA's internal ground-water organization: The Office
of Ground-Water Protection has been established in the Office of
Water to coordinate ground-water activities and to identify and
develop ground-water policies and guidelines.
Regional responsibility for ground-water coordination resides in the Water
Divisions. Functions of the regional programs include overseeing ground-
water policy development, providing technical and institutional support to
States, and coordinating regional ground-water program plans, state work
programs, site assessments, and enforcement.
4-7
-------
The GWPS will affect CERCLA remedial actions mainly through the ground-
water protection guidelines and classification system. The classification
of affected ground waters will not change the hazard ranking score of a
site; however, sites where ground water that is contaminated or threatened
with contamination is a current source of drinking water do score higher
than those where ground water is not a current source. Ground-water clas-
sifications should be used to establish priorities for initiating remedial
investigations. Also, the degree of cleanup or protection of groundwater
resources to be achieved at CERCLA sites will generally be keyed to the
classification of the affected or potentially affected ground waters.
Therefore, the evaluation and selection of remedial alternatives will have
to take account of the ground-water classification.
Remedial actions at sites that overlie Class 1 ground waters (Special
Ground Waters) will be given high priority. Cleanups will be to drinking
water standards or levels that protect human health. Cleanup beyond the
site boundaries may also be necessary. Statutory factors (e.g., Fund-
balancing) and the need to achieve rapid private party response may require
occasional acceptance of lower levels of cleanup.
At sites that overlie Class 2 ground waters, the goal of CERCLA
cleanups will be drinking water quality or Alternative Concentration Limits
(ACLs) under RCRA upon a determination that the ACL will not pose substan-
tial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment. In the
absence of an ACL or a drinking water standard, the goal of cleanup is the
background level. Modifications are more likely for potential drinking
water supplies than for current supplies. Consequently, alternatives to
ground-water cleanup and restoration may be appropriate. In such a case,
the plume of contamination may be monitored and managed to prevent or miti-
gate its migration into a current source of drinking water or to avoid wide-
spread damage. In certain situations involving current sources of drinking
water, such as when technical feasibility is an issue, the cost-effective
remedy may be to provide an alternative drinking water supply rather than
restoring the contaminated aquifer.
For CERCLA sites that overlie ground waters not considered potential
sources of drinking water and of limited beneficial use (Class 3 ground
waters), CERCLA remedial actions will generally not involve ground-water
cleanup. The priority of these sites for remedial action will be low in the
absence of other hazards to human health and the environment (such as sur-
face water contamination, fire, or explosion).
Criteria for ground-water classification have not yet been developed in
detail. However, the classifications will be determined in conjunction with
assessments of the extent of contamination for CERCLA cleanup actions on a
site-specific basis. In many cases, the geologic and hydrologic information
necessary to make this classification will have been gathered as part of the
site investigation. Information collected by other Federal and State agen-
cies may be used for classification. Therefore, during preparation of the
feasibility study, the classification should be available for determining
the level of. protection to be achieved.
4-8
-------
4.4 COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)
Remedial actions taken pursuant to sections 104 and 106 of CERCLA are
generally exempt from the NEPA requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), based on numerous court decisions holding that the
Agency carries out the functional equivalent of a NEPA review in its permit-
ting and regulatory activities. Under this exemption, the EPA is not obli-
gated to comply with formal EIS procedures if two criteria are met. The
first is that the authorizing statute (i.e., CERCLA) must provide substan-
tive and procedural standards to ensure full and adequate consideration of
environmental issues and alternatives. The second is that the public must
be afforded an opportunity to participate in evaluating environmental
factors and alternatives before a final decision is made.
Taking the following steps will ensure that Fund-financed remedial
actions meet these criteria and achieve functional equivalence with EIS
requirements:
1. The process for determining the extent of the remedy required by
CERCLA section 105(3) and described in section 300.68 of the NCP
must be followed. To meet the first criterion of NEPA functional
equivalency, this process includes the necessary and appropriate
investigation and analysis of environmental factors as they
specifically relate to a Superfund site, and alternatives that are
being considered to correct the situation.
2. To meet the second criterion, a meaningful opportunity for public
comment on environmental issues must be provided before the final
selection of a remedial alternative. To meet this requirement, EPA
Regions must allow both the opportunity and adequate time for the
public to review draft feasibility studies. This should be accom-
plished as part of the community relations program required at all
Superfund response sites.
4.5 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
CERCLA, the NCP, and Executive Order 12316 delegate the authority to
manage certain aspects of Superfund responses to several Federal agencies.
For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is authorized to
manage relocations. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also are often called on to assist in
remedial actions. These agencies can contribute useful advice during the
remedial investigation and feasibility study and should be consulted. The
United States Geological Survey (USGS) is not delegated any specific CERCLA
response authority, but its technical knowledge of geological character-
istics at sites can be valuable in evaluating remedial alternatives. If
coordination is required for any remedial alternative, the feasibility study
4-9
-------
must indicate that the appropriate agency has been or will be contacted and
that the needed coordination mechanism either is in place or can be devel-
oped .
4.5.1 Federal Emergency Management Agency
Permanent relocation of residences, businesses, and community
facilities is included in the definition of remedy under CERCLA section
101(24). Permanent relocation may be undertaken as part of a remedial
action if human health is in danger and if, alone or in combination with
other measures, it would be cost-effective and environmentally preferable to
other responses. Temporary relocation, including evacuation and temporary
housing of threatened individuals not otherwise provided for, may also be
undertaken as part of a remedial action (e.g., during cleanup at a CERCLA
site to limit exposure or threat of exposure to a significant environmental
hazard).
EPA and FEMA efforts must be coordinated when a remedial action
includes relocation. Executive Order 12316 delegates to the Director of
FEMA the authority to carry out relocation under CERCLA. A memorandum of
understanding between EPA and FEMA is being developed to define the respon-
sibilities of these agencies in such relocation actions. The memorandum,
when approved by both agencies, will supplement this section with more
detailed guidance on the roles of FEMA and EPA in relocation and procedures
for initiating relocation actions.
The required coordination between the agencies may affect implemen-
tation of an alternative. Also, community interest in remedial alternatives
that include relocation will be high. For remedial alternatives that
include relocation, the feasibility study must indicate that FEMA has been
or will be contacted and that the necessary coordination mechanism either is
established or can be developed. During the feasibility study the user
should evaluate the effect of relocation on implementation of the remedial
alternatives.
4.5.2 Health and Human Services
The Department of Health and Human Services, through the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), is responsible for monitoring the
health of workers and citizens at or near Superfund sites and for ensuring
adequate health care. In this capacity, HHS can contribute to the evalua-
tion of remedial alternatives. For each alternative, NIOSH and ATSDR can
provide advice on the procedures that would be required to conduct worker
health and safety programs and ensure the health of the local community.
Furthermore, HHS health and epidemiological studies may provide data useful
4-10
-------
in assessing health concerns. When the user determines that HHS expertise
is required, he or she should contact the regional HHS representative to
request NIOSH or ATSDR support.
A memorandum of understanding between EPA and HHS is being developed to
define the responsibilities of each agency in responses pursuant to CERCLA.
The memorandum, when approved by both agencies, will supplement this section
with more detailed guidance on HHS involvement.
4.5.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manages the technical work during the
remedial design and construction phases of Federal-lead remedial actions.
The Corps also helps EPA review State-lead projects to determine their
suitability for bidding and construction.
The Corps benefits from early involvement in the remedial investigation
and feasibility study by learning about site problems before a remedy is
selected. The Corps also can contribute valuable technical assistance from
the earliest stages. For example, the Corps may require certain data about
the site for design and construction that may not be needed to evaluate and
recommend remedial alternatives. Collecting such data during the remedial
investigation is generally less costly than going back to the site after the
remedy has been selected.
The Corps can also provide useful advice about the technical
feasibility of the various remedial alternatives, ensuring that the alter-
native selected can be engineered and constructed. EPA will not assign a
remedial action to the Corps for management if the Corps determines that the
action is not reasonable to design, construct, operate, and maintain. In
addition, the Corps can initiate the process of securing rights-of-way, thus
reducing the delay between selection and implementation of an alternative.
The Corps' expertise may also be useful in cases in which Corps-
administered permits are applicable (e.g., when the remedial action involves
discharge of dredged or fill material). When the user determines that Corps
advice is needed, he should contact the appropriate District Engineer.
The Corps may also be called upon to perform compliance monitoring of
remedial construction activities of responsible parties under enforcement.
4.5.4 U.S. Geological Survey
The user may find it useful to consult with USGS district offices to
gather basic technical information about a site. It is generally not
4-11
-------
appropriate to contract with USGS to perform the feasibility study in a
Federal-lead remedial action. Instead, the USGS may be consulted as a
formal contractor to the Remedial Planning and Field Investigation Team
contractor or through an interagency agreement (agreements for this purpose
already exist). In State-lead responses, it may be appropriate for the USGS
to perform the feasibility study as a contractor to the State. EPA is cur-
rently exploring this issue to clarify the appropriate USGS role in
Superfund responses.
Many States employ geologists who can provide useful technical infor-
mation about sites in their States; they often can be contacted through
State departments of natural resources. Using State geologists makes it
possible to bypass any contractual difficulties or delays caused by the need
for formal contracts with USGS. State geologists may be especially useful
when the need for a geologist at a site is not great enough to warrant
hiring a geologist full-time for an indefinite period. In any case, State
geologists form a valuable resource that should not be overlooked.
4.5.5 Occupational Safety and Health Administration
While worker safety and health at Superfund response sites are the
responsibility of employers, OSHA has the authority to inspect Superfund
sites and issue citations for unsafe conditions. The OSHA health response
team is available to provide technical assistance to regional project
managers, OSCs, and contractors in appropriate safety procedures. Note that
some States operate their own occupational safety and health programs in
place of OSHA, and that some working conditions are covered by Federal agen-
cies other than OSHA (such as the Mining Safety and Health Administration).
These other agencies could have jurisdiction in some CERCLA response actions
for specific working conditions.
4.5.6 National Response Team
The National Response Team (NRT) and Regional Response Teams (RRTs)
provide an existing structure for the coordination of activities undertaken
by the agencies and States that may be involved in a response action. The
NRT and RRTs can provide points of contact in Federal agencies or State
governments for obtaining information necessary to the feasibility study,
and may be able to provide equipment or other support in performance of the
remedial action.
4-12
-------
4.5.7 Other Government Authorities
Certain other agencies may also give advice useful in planning and
implementing remedial actions. These agencies and their potential roles in
remedial actions include:
• The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation can consult on
remedial actions involving landmarks, historic sites, or areas of
scientific, cultural, or historic interest.
• The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of the Department of the
Interior may be helpful when a remedial action involves Federal
lands on which BLM has authority over waste disposal or access, such
as floodplains and landmarks.
• The Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior can
provide advice and information on preventing or lessening impacts on
fish and wildlife, especially game species; identifying threatened
and endangered species; identifying habitats of special interest;
and listing or mapping wetlands. This information would be useful
in applying for permits for the discharge of dredged or fill
material.
• The Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture can provide
advice and information on the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
• The Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service of the Department
of the Interior can provide advice and information on National
Register of Historic Places and Natural Areas.
• The Department of Housing and Urban Development can provide
floodplain maps.
• The Department of Transportation may be helpful if the remedial
alternative involves off-site transport of hazardous wastes.
4.6 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Community relations activities are an integral part of every
Superfund-financed remedial action whether it be Federal-, State-, or
private party-lead, regardless of the choice of remedial alternatives. The
EPA's "Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook" supplements this
section with background material, the community relations requirements and
more detailed procedural guidance on planning and implementing effective
community relations programs.
4-13
-------
A community relations plan (CRP) is a management and planning tool that
outlines the specific communications activities to be used during a
Superfund response and the integration of these activities with technical
work at the site. The plan must be based on interviews conducted within the
community with local officials, civic leaders, community "residents and
leaders, and public interest groups.
To provide a meaningful opportunity for public comment, the following
steps must be included in the community relations program:
1. Interviews with interested and affected community residents must be
conducted to determine level of interest, major issues, and
information needs.
2. Based on the community interviews, a community relations plan is
developed for the site before RI field work begins.
3. Regions must provide local notice of the availability of the draft
feasibility study. This notice can be provided through publication
in local newspapers and through civic groups or other organiza-
tions. The draft feasibility study should be placed in local
information repositories such as community libraries or churches.
4. At least 3 weeks must be allowed for comment, measured from the
date of notice of availability of the draft RI/FS study. The
Superfund coordinator, in consultation with the EPA Regional
Administrator, can allot additional time. In general, unless the
site problem is highly technical and citizen concern is high, 3
weeks should be sufficient, so long as the draft study is expedi-
tiously distributed. An informal meeting or briefing can be held
at the beginning of the review period to discuss the results of the
draft study.
5. A responsiveness summary must be included in the final feasibility
study.
In addition to these steps, the following should be performed so that
the community relations program is procedurally equivalent to the public
participation requirements of the Federal Environmental Impact Statement
Program:
• A fact sheet should be included with the public notice and
feasibility study provided to the public 2 weeks before the 3-week
public comment period. The fact sheet must clearly summarize the
4
Interim version, September 1983.
4-14
-------
feasibility study response alternatives and other issues, including
which alternatives comply with other environmental laws. For alter-
natives that meet the goals of CERCLA in protecting human health and
the environment but do not meet the technical requirements of other
environmental laws, the fact sheet shall identify the ways they
differ and the reason for each difference. The public notice should
include the schedule on which a decision will be reached, any tenta-
tive determinations made by the Agency, the location where relevant
documents can be obtained, community involvement opportunities, the
name of an Agency contact, and other appropriate information.
• A public notice and updated fact sheet should be prepared when the
Agency has selected the response action and again when the final
engineering design is complete, to demonstrate that the remedy
provides adequate protection and satisfies the public's concerns.
• If a remedy is identified that is different from those proposed
during the public comment period on the feasibility study, a new
3-week public comment period may be required before the Record of
Decision is amended, taking into consideration the features of the
alternatives addressed in the public comment period.
In evaluating remedial alternatives, the user should be sensitive to
public perception of the alternatives. Alternatives perceived to be unac-
ceptable by the community may be delayed or prohibited by zoning changes or
other measures. Steps necessary to address public concerns and incorporate
citizen input when feasible should be taken as early as possible.
4.7 SUMMARY OF INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
This section summarizes, in table form, Federal, State, and local
requirements applicable or relevant to response actions. Tables 4-1 and 4-2
are intended as a checklist for users; it should not be used as a substitute
for the actual regulations and policies.
4-15
-------
TABLE 4-1. APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT REQUIREMENTS
1. Office of Solid Waste
• Open Dump Criteria (RCRA Subtitle D, 40 CFR Part 257)
Note: Only relevant to nonhazardous wastes. In most situations,
Superfund wastes will be handled in accordance with RCRA Subtitle C
requirements.
• Hazardous Waste Regulations (RCRA Subtitle C, 40 CFR Part 264)
including liner, cap, ground-water, and closure requirements under
the following subparts:
F. Ground-Water Protection
G. Closure and Post-Closure
H. Financial Requirements
I. Use and Management of Containers
J. Tanks
K. Surface Impoundments
L. Waste Piles
M. Land Treatment
N. Landfills
0. Incinerators
2. Office of Water
• Maximum Contaminant Levels (for all sources of drinking water
exposure)
• Underground Injection Control Regulations
• State Water Quality Standards (applicable for surface water
discharge)
• Requirements established pursuant to sections 301 and 403 of the
Clean Water Act
• Ocean Dumping Requirements including incineration at sea
• Pretreatment standards for discharge into publicly owned treatment
works (POTW).
(continued)
5
'Applies to enforcement action, not applicable or relevant to Fund-financed
actions.
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
3. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
* PCB Requirements including Disposal and Marking Rule (43 FR 7150,
2/17/78); PCB Ban Rule (44 FR 31514, 5/31/79).
• 40 CFR 775 Subpart J - Disposal of Waste Material Containing TCDD.
4. Office of External Affairs
• Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill
Material [§404(b)(l) Guidelines, 40 CFR Part 230]
• Denial or Restriction of Disposal Site for Dredged Material: Final
Rule [§404(c)].
5. Office of Air and Radiation
• Uranium mill tailing rules
• National Ambient Air Quality Standards
• High- and low-level radioactive waste rule
• Asbestos disposal rules
6. Other Federal Requirements
• OSHA requirements
• Preservation of scientific, historical, or archeological data
• D.O.T. Hazardous Materials Transport Rules
• Regulation of activities in or affecting waters of the United States
pursuant to 33 CFR Parts 320-329
• The following requirements are triggered by Fund-financed actions:
- Preservation of rivers on the national inventory, Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act, §7, 40 CFR Part 6.302(e)
(continued)
4-17
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Protection of threatened or endangered species and their
habitats
Conservation of Wildlife Resources
- Executive Orders related to Floodplains (11988) and Wetlands
(11990)
- Coastal Zone Management Act.
4-18
-------
TABLE 4-2. OTHER REQUIREMENTS, ADVISORIES, AND GUIDANCE TO BE CONSIDERED
1. Federal Requirements, Advisories,, and Procedures
A. Recommended Maximum Concentration Limits (RMCLs)
B. Health Advisories, EPA, Office of Water
C. Federal Water Quality Criteria
Note: Federal water quality criteria are not legally enforceable.
State water quality standards, developed using appropriate aspects
of Federal water quality criteria, are legally enforceable. In many
cases, States water quality standards do not include specific numer-
ical limitations on a large number of priority pollutants. When
there are no numerical State standards for a given pollutant,
Federal water quality criteria should be considered.
D. Pesticide and food additive tolerances and action levels data
Note: Germane portions of tolerances and action levels may be
relevant to certain situations.
E. Waste load allocation procedures, EPA Office of Water
F. Federal sole source aquifer requirements
G. Public health basis in listing decision under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act
H. EPA ground-water protection strategy
I. New Source Performance Standards for Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids
J. TSCA health data
K. Pesticide registration data
L. TSCA chemical advisories (two or three issued to date)
M. Advisories issued by FWS and NWFS under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act
(continued)
4-19
-------
TABLE 4-2. (continued)
N. National Environmental Policy Act
0. Floodplain and Wetlands Executive Orders.
2. State Requirements
A. State Requirements on Disposal and Transport of Radioactive wastes
B. State Approval of Water Supply System Additions or Developments
C. State Ground-Water Withdrawal Approvals
D. Requirements of authorized (RCRA Subtitle C) State hazardous waste
programs
E. State Implementation Plans and delegated programs under the Clean
Air Act
F. All other State requirements, not delegated through EPA authority.
Note: Many other State and local requirements could be relevant.
The guidance for feasibility studies will include a more compre-
hensive list.
3. USEPA RCRA Guidance Documents
A. EPA RCRA Design Guidelines
1. Surface Impoundments, Liners Systems, Final Cover, and Freeboard
Control
2. Waste Pile Design - Liner Systems
3. Land Treatment Units
4. Landfill Design - Liner System and Final Cover.
B. Permitting Guidance Manuals
1. Permit Applicant's Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facilities
(continued)
4-20
-------
TABLE 4-2. (continued)
2. Permit Writer's Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facilities
3. Permit Writer's Guidance Manual for Subpart F
4. Permit Applicant's Guidance Manual for the General Facility
Standards
5. Waste Analysis Plan Guidance Manual
6. Permit Writer's Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Tanks
7. Model Permit Application for Existing Incinerators
8. Guidance Manual for Evaluating Permit Applications for the
Operation of Hazardous Waste Incinerator Units
9. A Guide for Preparing RCRA Permit Applications for Existing
Storage Facilities
10. Guidance Manual on Closure and Post-Closure Interim Status
Standards.
C. Technical Resource Documents (TRDs)
1. Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid and Hazardous Waste
2. Hydrologic Simulation of Solid Waste Disposal Sites
3. Landfill and Surface Impoundment Performance Evaluation
4. Lining of Waste Impoundment and Disposal Facilities
5. Management of Hazardous Waste Leachate
6. Guide to the Disposal of Chemically Stabilized and Solidified
Waste
7. Closure of Hazardous Waste Surface Impoundments
8. Hazardous Waste Land Treatment
(continued)
4-21
-------
TABLE 4-2. (continued)
9. Soil Properties, Classification, and Hydraulic Conductivity
Testing.
D. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste
1. Solid Waste Leaching Procedure Manual
2. Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume Migration and
Mixing
3. Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model
Hydrologic Simulation on Solid Waste Disposal Sites
4. Procedures for Modeling Flow Through Clay Liners
5. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes
6. A Method for Determining the Compatibility of Hazardous Wastes
7. Guidance Manual on Hazardous Waste Compatibility
4. USEPA Office of Water Guidance Documents
A. Pretreatment Guidance Documents
1. 304(g) Guidance Document Revised Pretreatment Guidelines (3
Volumes)
Provides technical data describing priority pollutants and their
effects on wastewater treatment processes to be used in devel-
oping local limits; describes technologies applicable to cate-
gorical industries.
B. Water Quality Guidance uocuments
1. Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material
into Ocean Waters (1977)
2. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for
Conducting Use. Attainability Analyses (1983)
Outlines methods for conducting use attainability analyses under
the Clean Water Act.
(continued)
4-22
-------
TABLE 4-2. (continued)
3. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants
(1979)
Describes the transformation and transportation of priority
pollutants.
4. Water Quality Standards Handbook (1983)
Provides an overview of the Criteria Standards Program under the
Clean Water Act and outlines methods for conducting criteria
standards modification.
5. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control.
C. NPDES Guidance Documents
1. NPDES Best Management Practices Guidance Manual (June 1981)
Provides a protocol for evaluating BMPs for controlling dis-
charges of toxic and hazardous substances to receiving waters.
2. Biomonitoring Guidance, July 1983, subsequent biomonitoring
policy statements and case studies on toxicity reduction
evaluation (May 1983).
D. Ground-Water/UIC Guidance Document
1. Designation of a USDW
2. Elements of Aquifer Identification
3. Interim guidance for public participation
4. Definition of major facilities
5. Corrective action requirements
6. Requirements applicable to wells injecting into, through, or
above an aquifer which has been exempted pursuant to
§146.104(b)(4).
7. Guidance for UIC implementation on Indian lands.
(continued)
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-2. (continued)
8. Technical Resource Documents (currently under development by
OGWP).
5. USEPA Manuals from the Office of Research and Development
A. SW-846 - laboratory analytic methods
B. Laboratory protocols developed pursuant to Clean Water Act §304(h)
4-24
-------
CHAPTER 5
EVALUATE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH REQUIREMENTS
5.1 OVERVIEW
The remedial action selected for a Superfund hazardous waste site must
adequately protect public health, welfare, and the environment. This
requires documenting that the action minimizes the long-term effects of any
residual contamination, and protects the public both during and after the
action. This chapter provides interim guidance for ensuring that remedial
actions limit the concentrations of toxic substances in the environment to
avoid unacceptable threats to human health.
More comprehensive guidance on assessing public health effects is under
development. The schedules of many remedial actions, however, make it
necessary to disseminate interim guidance for ongoing feasibility studies.
This guidance will aid in data collection and decisionmaking until final
guidance is prepared. In accordance with current procedures, the public
health evaluation may be done by EPA Regions, the State, a responsible
party, or their consultants. When the Regional Administrator finds it
appropriate, he or she may request the help of EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) (for environmental exposure and risk assessments) or the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (for human health
studies, health assessments, and health advisories) in evaluating public
health effects at a site. EPA's assessments will be developed in consul-
tation with ASTDR so the assessment results will serve as input to ASTDR's
public health evaluations for both Fund-financed as well as enforcement
cases. Until the necessary toxicological data and guidance on their appli-
cation can be generated and provided in a standard format, Headquarters
personnel will also help in the evaluation, providing necessary information
and reviewing final documentation.
An endangerment assessment must be conducted for all enforcement sites.
At a minimum, it should establish the potential health and environmental
This chapter contains interim guidance for public health evaluation. Final
guidance for public health evaluation will be provided after completion of
risk assessment guidelines for evaluating chemical hazards that do not have
appropriate standards or criteria.
5-1
-------
threats of the site in the absence of response action. The endangerment
assessment will have some components of the public health assessment
described in this chapter, but may be more or less detailed depending on the
amount, type and quality of data available. For example, if the endanger-
ment assessment is prepared before an RI has begun or during the initial
stages of an RI, less data will be available than if the endangerment
assessment is prepared after an RI is completed. For some enforcement
sites, the feasibility study public health assessment may serve as the
endangerment assessment. Chapter 10 (forthcoming) describes endangerment
assessments in detail.
These interim guidance procedures were developed to account for the
great variety of conditions at different Superfund sites. All remedial
sites should undergo a public health evaluation, although the form and
extent of the assessment will depend on the situation. The interim public
health evaluation has several steps (though not all apply to all remedial
sites):
• Baseline site evaluation: Preliminary evaluation and classification
that all sites must undergo.
• Exposure assessment: Analysis of the extent and duration of human
exposure to site contaminants in the absence of remedial action.
• Standards analysis: Comparison of projected environmental concen-
trations to appropriate ambient standards or criteria.
• Develop, evaluate, and modify remedial alternatives: Evaluation of
short- and long-term effects of remedial alternatives to remove or
mitigate exposures of concern identified during the exposure
assessment. Specific design goals will be based on applicable or
relevant standards, or the absence of appropriate_standards, to
develop at least one option corresponding to a 10 risk level and
other reasonable alternatives corresponding to a 10 to 10 risk
level.
5.2 DEVELOP A BASELINE SITE EVALUATION
Baseline site evaluation is the first step in public health evaluation
for all sites. First, the available data relevant to public health evalua-
tion should be collected, organized, and reviewed. The information col-
lected should include site background data, disposal history (and records,
if available), types of remedial technologies considered, on-site and off-
site chemical data, site environmental data (e.g., topography and hydro-
geology), information on local human populations, and information on human
health effects (which may be unavailable). Data sources include preliminary
assessment data and reports, field reports, remedial investigation scoping
documentation, and analytical data and reports available from ongoing site
characterization and alternatives screening activities.
5-2
-------
Of particular importance in this initial review is the information used
to define the type of action likely to be taken at a site and the level of
detail required for the exposure assessment. Sites involving contamination
that has not migrated much beyond the source generally call for relatively
simple source control measures. Sites that have evidence of contaminant
migration beyond the source (e.g., into ground water) may consider source
control options as well as management of migration alternatives. Other
sites may have such extensive migration of contaminants that only management
of migration options would be suitable. These classifications are generally
made at the RI/FS scoping stage. The distinctions are important in deter-
mining the extent of analysis and evaluation required for each alternative
(see section 5.4). Thus, all data on the extent of contamination, con-
taminant mobility and migration, and types of remedial alternatives should
be carefully reviewed. The result of the baseline evaluation should be a
determination of the data required to conduct the exposure assessment and
the level of detail in this assessment. This evaluation will generally be
conducted in conjunction with development of the site sampling plan.
To be considered a source control situation, the site and the remedial
alternatives must meet all of the following conditions:
• The known and suspected chemical contamination at the site is
restricted to near its original location.
• The remedial alternatives considered include both on-site control
measures, and removal and off-site disposal or treatment at a
facility approved under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) or other environmental laws including TSCA, CWA, CAA, MPRSA,
or SDWA, as appropriate.
• The remedial alternatives will prevent or minimize releases of
contaminants.
Management of migration measures should be evaluated if these conditions are
not met.
5.3 DEVELOP AN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
At sites where only source control remedial measures are being
evaluated, a qualitative assessment of the potential public health threats
in the absence of remedial action will generally be conducted. An in-depth
quantitative analysis is not warranted in such situations where (1) con-
tamination has not migrated into any transport media capable of producing
human exposures and (2) the only actions under consideration are those that
prevent such migration. However, at a minimum, a qualitative exposure
analysis is required to evaluate the types, amounts, and concentrations of
chemicals at the site, their toxic effects, the proximity of target popula-
tions, the likelihood of chemical release and migration from the site, and
the potential for exposure. This health assessment requires written docu-
mentation.
5-3
-------
Source control alternatives will be based on acceptable engineering
practice for preventing off-site releases and on applicable or relevant
standards (e.g., RCRA design standards). Quantitative health risk assess-
ment will usually not be required for alternative selection or design at
these sites. However, the reliability of such remedies should be evaluated
in the context of engineering practicality as set forth in chapter 3. In
those situations, the operation and maintenance agreement should include
effective monitoring provisions to ensure that a failure would be identified
prior to human or environmental exposure.
At sites where management of migration options are being considered, a
quantitative exposure assessment should be undertaken. The objective of
exposure assessment is to estimate the frequency, magnitude, and duration of
human exposure to toxic chemical contaminants released from a site. Several
tasks are required in this assessment:
• Identifying chemicals present at the site and selecting indicator
chemicals (based on toxicity, persistence, mobility, and quantity
present)
• Identifying points of potential human exposure and exposure pathways
for each remedial alternative considered
• Characterizing populations potentially at risk
• Estimating at key exposure points the environmental concentrations
of each indicator substance.
In some situations, there may only be a small number of chemicals
present and all chemicals may be evaluated. At sites where there are a
large number of chemicals, specific indicator chemicals may be selected to
facilitate a manageable analytical and design effort. These indicators
should represent the most toxic, persistent, mobile, and prevalent chemicals
at the site. While this document promotes the use of indicator chemicals in
the development and analysis of alternatives, EPA recognizes there may be
some short comings in developing alternatives that must be in compliance
with RCRA regulations (CFR Part 264). In these instances, the project
manager should consult with the EPA RCRA office to determine the minimum
requirements for analyzing constituents at the site. In many cases, an
analysis of RCRA Appendix VIII constituents can be demonstrated using
carefully selected indicator chemicals.
Table 5-1 provides a reasonably complete list of questions that should
be answered in an exposure assessment. These questions apply to both quali-
tative and quantitative assessments. Because extreme uncertainties are
likely, a critical part of all exposure assessments is documenting assump-
tions and other sources of uncertainty. A detailed manual for conducting
exposure assessments is under development. In the interim, project managers
should use their best judgement in characterizing each of the above
elements.
5-4
-------
TABLE 5-1. QUESTIONS IN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
I. Chemical Identification
A. What chemicals are known or suspected to have been
disposed at the site?
B. What quantities of each chemical were disposed?
C. How were they disposed (bulk dumping, drums, bulk
storage)?
D. Which chemicals are now in the environment (air,
land, surface water, ground water)?
E. What are the ambient levels of these chemicals in
the air, ground water, surface water, and soil?
F. What conditions or events could affect contamination
levels on- and off-site?
G. What chemicals can be used as indicators of the
overall risk at the site?
II. Surrounding Population
A. Describe the population surrounding the site:
1. How many people are potentially exposed?
2. Who are they (especially high-risk groups,
e.g., children, the elderly, or the ill)?
3. Where is the population located relative to the
site?
4. Is the area mainly for residence or business?
5. What type of access is there to the site?
6. What normal activities might be affected by
contamination (e.g., farming by contaminated
soil)?
B. What, if any, health-related complaints have been
received? Have these been documented or proven to
be related to the site?
III. Potential Exposure Routes
A. Unavoidable on-site exposure (residences, etc.)
1. How are people exposed?
2. What are the routes of exposure (through
inhalation, the skin, or ingestion)?
3. To what chemicals are people exposed?
4. To what levels are they exposed (use monitoring
data and modeling if appropriate)?
(continued)
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-1. (continued)
5. How many people are exposed at these levels
(i.e., through each pathway)?
B. Voluntary on-site exposure
1. How are people exposed?
2. What are the routes of exposure (through
inhalation, the skin, or ingestion)?
3. To what chemicals are people exposed?
4. To what levels are they exposed (use monitoring
data and modeling if appropriate) and how many
people are exposed at these levels (i.e., through
each pathway)?
5. Can this exposure be prevented?
C. Off-site exposure (actual and potential)
1. What environmental routes must chemicals take
for exposure?
2. How likely are these routes of exposure?
3.' When is exposure expected to occur?
4. How are people exposed (through inhalation, the
skin, or ingestion)?
5. To what chemicals are people exposed?
6. To what levels are they exposed (use monitoring
data and modeling if appropriate)?
7. How many people are exposed at these levels
(i.e., through each pathway)?
D. Other non-waste-related exposures
1. Is the population, or are segments of the
population, exposed to any of these chemicals
from other routes, e.g., in the workplace?
2. Are the ambient environmental levels of any of
the chemicals known?
3. Are they suspected to be abnormally high for any
reason?
IV. The Effect of Not Taking Action
A. Technical issues
1. What will happen if no action is taken (e.g.,
lagoon failure, aquifer contamination, drum
failure', air contamination)?
2. What chemicals will be of concern?
(continued)
5-6
-------
TABLE 5-1. (continued)
B. Exposure issues
1. What exposure will result from not taking
action?
2. Will exposure increase indefinitely?
3. Will exposure rise and then fall? Over what
time?
4. What is the predicted range of eventual
contamination and exposure?
5-7
-------
5.4 COMPARE ALTERNATIVES TO APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
Following the exposure assessment, estimated environmental concen-
trations of the indicator chemicals selected for that site should be
compared to applicable or relevant environmental standards and criteria.
This comparison must be made for each of the alternatives discussed in
section 4.2. Table 5-2 lists sub stance-specific relevant and applicable
numerical standards as well as other numerical criteria, advisories, and
guidance to be considered in the analysis of alternatives. (See Appendix C,
CERCLA Compliance with the Requirements of Other Environmental Statutes, for
a more complete listing of various types of standards, criteria, advisories,
and guidance.) There may be some situations where applicable or relevant
standards listed in Tables 5-2 and 4-1 are not applicable to specific site
situations (for example, see section 5.4.2). There may be situations, as
well, where there are relevant or applicable standards that cover only some
of the substances at a site. In contrast to these two situations, it is
more likely that a project manager will more frequently use relevant or
applicable technology-based standards (e.g., 40 CFR 264, treatment, storage,
and disposal regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act)
or consider other advisories, criteria, and guidance for specific substances
at a site in fashioning alternative remedies.
In fashioning alternatives, it is first necessary to determine whether
any relevant or applicable standards exist. Applicable standards are those
that would legally apply if the action was not being taken under CERCLA.
Relevant standards are those designed to apply to circumstances sufficiently
similar to those encountered at CERCLA sites in which their application
would be appropriate at a specific site although not legally required.
These relevant and applicable standards (both technology- and substance-
specific) should be used as primary design goals. In addition, other
advisories, criteria, and guidance should be considered, especially in cases
where relevant and applicable standards do not exist. Other advisories,
criteria, and guidance should be examined closely to determine whether they
need to be modified to fit site conditions (e.g., where exposure assumptions
underlying a criterion are significantly different than site conditions).
The project manager and decisionmaker will find that the use of other
criteria, advisories, and guidance yield somewhat more flexibility in
alternatives design and selection than relevant or applicable standards
(which must be attained unless one of the five specific circumstances
exists). Section 5.4.1 provides a summary of the assumptions underlying
some of the standards, criteria, and advisories that may be most frequently
used.
As discussed in Chapter 4, five categories of alternatives must be
examined:
1. Treatment or disposal at an off-site facility;
2. Those that attain applicable or relevant standards;
5-8
-------
TABLE 5-2. EPA AMBIENT STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR SUPERFUND REMEDIAL SITES
01
Applicable or Relevant
Requirements Other Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance
Chemical
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Ant lawny
Araenic
Asbestos
Bariuai
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryl liim
Cadaiiuai
Carbon axraoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorinated benzenes
Hexachlorobencene
1 , 2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Pent achlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
Monochl orobenzene
Chlorinated ethanes
, 2-Dichloroethane
, 1 , 1 -Tr ichloroethane
,1,2-Trichloroethane
,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
exachloroethane
Monochloroethane
, 1-Dichloroethane
, 1 , 1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
Pentachloroethane
Safe Drinking
Water Act,
MCLs (««/L Clean Water Act,
unless Water Quality Criteria
otherwise Clean Air Act, for Huaan Health —
noted) NAAQS (ug/m ) Fish and Drinking Water
20 ug/L (organolept ic)
320 ug/L
0 (58 ng/L)
0 (0.074 ng/L)
146 ug/L
0.05 0 (2.2 ng/L)
0 (30,000 fibers/L)
1.0
0 (0.66 ug/L)
0 (0.12 ng/L)
0 (3.7 ng/L)
0.01 . 10 ug/l
40,000 (l-hour)°
10,000 (8-hour)
0 (0.4 ug/L)
0 (0.46 ng/L)
0 (0.72 ng/L)
38 ug/L
74 ug/L
Insufficient data
488 ug/L
0 (0.94 ug/L)
18.4 «g/L
0 (0.6 ug/L)
0 (0.17 ug/L)
0 (1.9 ug/L)
Inaufficient data
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
Water Quality Criteria Health Advisories
for Huaan Health— (ag/D
Adjusted for 1-day 10-day Chronic
Drinking Water Only* (longer
tens)
20 ug/L ( organolept ic)
540 ug/L
0 (63 ng/L)
0 (1.2 ng/L)
146 ug/L
0 (2.5 ng/L)
0 (30,000 fibera/L)
0 (0.67 ug/L) 0.23 0.07
0 (0.15 ng/L)
0 (3.9 ng/L)
10 ug/L
0 (0.42 ug/L) 0.2 0.02
0 (22 ng/L) 0.0625 0.0625 0.0075
0 (21 ng/L)
180 ug/L
570 ug/L
Inaufficient data
488 ug/L
0 (0.94 ug/L) Insufficient data
19 og/L 1.0
0 (0.6 ug/L)
0 (0.17 ug/L)
0 (2.4 ug/L)
Insufficient data
Inaufficient data
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2. (continued)
Ln
I
Applicable or Relevant
Requirement!
Safe Drinking
Water Act ,
MCL> (ng/L
unless
otherwise Clean Air Act,
Chen ic a 1 noted) NAAQS (ug/m )
Other Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance
Clean Water Act , Clean Water Act ,
Water Quality Criteria Water Quality Criteria
for Hunan Health — for Human Health —
Fish and Drinking Water Adjusted for g
Drinking Water Only
Safe Drinking Water Act,
Health Advisories
(mg/L)
1-day 10-day Chronic
( longer
tens)
Chlorinated naphthalenes
Chlorinated phenols
3-Monochlorophenol
4-Monochlorophenol
2,3-Dichlorophenol
2,5-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
3,4-Dichlorophenol
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,S-Tr ichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2-Methyl-4-chlorophenol
3-Methyl-4-chlorophenol
3-Methyl-6-chlorophenol
Chlorophenoxys
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacet ic
acid (2,4-D) 0.1
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy-
propionic acid (2,4,5-TP) 0.01
Chloroalkyl ethers
bis-(Chloro«ethyl) ether
bis-(2-Chloroethyl) ether
bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
Chlorofora 0.1
2-Chlorophenol
Chroniun Cr+6 0.05
Cr+3
Copper
Cyanide
DDT
Dichlorobeneenes (all isoners)
Dichlorobenzidines
Dichloroethylenes
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethylene
Insufficient data
0.1 ug/L (organoleptic)
0.1 ug/L (organoleptic)
0.04 ug/L (organoleptic)
0.5 ug/L (organoleptic)
0.2 ug/L (organoleptic)
0.3 ug/L (organoleptic)
1.0 ug/L (organoleptic)
2600 ug/L
0 (1.2 ug/L)
1800 ug/L (organoleptic)
3000 .ug/L (organoleptic)
20 ug/L (organoleptic)
0 (0.0038 ng/L)
0 (30 ng/L)
34.7 ug/L
0 (0.19 ug/L)
O.I ug/L (organoleptic)
50 ug/L
170 mg/L
1 ng/L (organoleptic)
200 ug/L
0 (0.024 ng/L)
400 ug/L
0 (10.3 ng/L)
0 (33 ng/L)
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
0.1 ug/L (organoleptic)
0.1 ug/L (organoleptic)
0.04 ug/L (organoleptic)
0.5 ug/L (organoleptic)
0.2 ug/L (organoleptic)
0.3 ug/L (organoleptic)
1.0 ug/L (organoleptic)
2600 ug/L
0 (1.8 ug/L)
1800 ug/L (organoleptic)
3000 ug/L (organoleptic)
20 ug/L (organoleptic)
0 (0.0039 ng/L)
0 (30 ng/L)
34.7 ug/L
0 (0.19 ug/L)
0.1 ug/L (organoleptic)
50 ug/L
179 ng/L
1 ng/L (organoleptic)
200 ug/L
0 O1.2 ng/L)
470 ug/L
0 (20.7 ng/L)
0 (33 ng/L)
Insufficient data
1.0
4.0
2.7
0.4
0.27
0.07
(cis isoner)
(trans isoner)
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2. (continued)
Applicable or Relevant
Requirements
Other Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance
Chemical
Dichloromethane
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Dichloropropanes/
Dichloropropenes
Dichloropropanes
Dichloropropenes
Dieldrin
2 ,4-Dimethyl phenol
2-4-Dinitrotoluene
p-Dioxane
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Endosul fan
End r in
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene glycol
Formaldehyde
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Haloethers
Halomethanea
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexanes
Lindane (99Z gamma-HCH)
alpha-HCH
beta-HCH
gaona-HCH
delta-HCH
epsilon-HCH
Technical-HCH
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
n-Hexane
Hydrocarbons (non-methane)
Isophorone
Kerosene/ fuel oil no. 2
Safe Drinking
Water Act,
MCLs (mg/L Clean Water Act,
unless Water Quality Criteria
otherwise Clean Air Act, for Human Health —
noted) NAAQS (ug/m ) Fish and Drinking Water
See Halomethanes
3.09 mg/L
Insufficient data
87 ug/L
0 (0.071 ng/L)
400 ug/L (organolept ic)
0 (0.11 ug/L)
0 (42 ng/L)
74 ug/L
0.0002 1 ug/L
1.4 «g/L
42 ug/L
1.4-2.4
Insufficient data
0 (0.19 ug/L)
0 (0.28 ng/L)
0 (0.45 ug/L)
0.004
0 (9.2 ng/L)
0 (16.3 ng/L)
0 (18.6 ng/L)
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
0 (12.3 ng/L)
206 ug/L
160 (3-hour)d/f
5.2 mg/L
Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
Water Quality Criteria Health Advisories
for Husan Health. — (sg/L)
Adjusted for 1-day 10-day Chronic
Drinking Water Only (longer
term)
See Halomethanes 13 1.3 0.15
3.09 mg/L
Insufficient data
87 ug/L
0 (1.1 ng/L)
400 ug/L (organoleptic)
0 (0.11 ug/L)
5.68 0.568
0 (46 ng/L)
138 ug/L
1 ug/L
2.4 mg/L
19.0 5.5
0.03
188 ug/L
Insufficient data
0 (0.19 ug/L)
0 (11 ng/L)
0 (0.45 ug/L)
0 (13 ng/L)
0 (23.2 ng/L)
0 (26.4 ng/L)
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
0 (17.4 ng/L)
206 ug/L
13 4.0
5.2 mg/L
0.358
0.23
(cont inued)
-------
TABLE 5-2. (continued)
Ln
I
Cheaical
Lead
Mercury
Hethoxychlor
Methyl Ethyl Re tone
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrate (a* N)
Nitrobenzene
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrophenoli
2,4-Dinitro-o-cresol
Dinitrophenol
Mononitrophenol
Trinitro phenol
Nitrosaaines
n-Nitrosodinethylaaine
n-Nitroaodiethylaaiine
n-Nitroaodi-n-butylaaine
n-Nitroaodiphenylaaine
n-Ni troao pyrrol id ine
Ozone
Particulate Matter
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phthalate eaters
Diaethyl phthal at e
Diethylphthalate
Dibutyl phthal ate
Di-2-ethylhexyl-phthalate
Polychlorinated biphenyla
(PCBs)
Pol/nuclear aroatatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Applicable or Relevant
Requirements
Safe Drinking
Water Act,
MCLs («g/L
unless
otherwise Clean Air Act,
noted) NAAQS (ug/n )
0.05 1.5 (90-day)
0.002
0.1
10.0
100 (l-year)h
235 (1-hour)
260 (24-hour)7
75 (24-hour)
Other Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance
Clean Water Act,
Water Quality Criteria
for Hunan Health —
Fish and Drinking Water
50 ug/L
144 ng/L
Insufficient data
13.4 ug/L
19.8 a*/L
13.4 ug/L
70 ug/L
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
0 (1.4 ng/L)
0 (0.8 ng/L)
0 (6.4 ng/L)
0 (4.9 ug/L)
0 (16 ng/L)
1.01 «g/L
3.5 «g/L
313 «g/L
350 aig/L
34 «g/L
15 Bg/L
0 (0.079 ng/L)
0 (2.8 ng/L)
Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
Water Quality Criteria Health Advisories
for Human Health— (»g/L)
Adjusted for 1-day 10-day Chronic
Drinking Water Only* (longer
tern)
50 ug/L
10 ug/L
7.5 0.750
Insufficient data
15.4 ug/L
19.8 ag/L
13.6 ug/L
70 ug/L
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
0 (1.4 ng/L)
0 (0.8 ng/L)
0 (6.4 ng/L)
0 (7.0 ug/L)
0 (16 ng/L)
1.01 «g/L
3.5 -g/L
350 »g/L
434 «g/L
44 «g/L
21 -g/L
0 O12.6 ng/L) 0.125 0.0125
0 (3.1 ng/L)
(cont inued)
-------
TABLE 5-2. (continued)
Ul
I
U)
Chemical
Rad ion ucl ides
Radium-226 and 228
Gross alpha activity
Tritium
Strontium-90
Other man-made
Selenium
Silver
Sulfur dioxide
2,3,7, 8-TCDD
Tetrachloroethylene
Thai 1 iura
Tol uene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene .
Trihalomethanes (total)
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
Zinc
These adjusted criteria
Applicable or Relevant
Requirements
Safe Drinking
Water Act,
HCLs (mg/L
unless
otherwise Clean Air Act,
noted) NAAQS (ug/m3)
5 pCi/L
15 pCi/L
20,000 pCi/L
8 pCi/L
j
0.01
0.05
365 (24-hour}
80 (1-year)"
0.005
; o.i
, for drinking water ingestion only,
Other Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance
Clean Water Act,
Water Quality Criteria
for Human Health —
Fish and Drinking Water
10 ug/L
50 ug/L
0 (0.000013 ng/L)
0 (0.8 ug/L)
13 ug/L
14.3 mg/L
0 (0.71 mg/L)
0 (2.7 ug/L)
0 (2.0 ug/L)
5 mg/L (organoleptic)
were derived from published
1980) for combined fish and drinking water ingestion and for fish ingestion alone. These
Criteria, but may be appropriate for Superfund sites with contaminated ground water. In
Clean Water Act, Safe
Drinking Water Act,
Water Quality Criteria Health Advisories
for Human Health —
Adjusted for 1-day
Drinking Water Only*
10 ug/L
50 ug/L
0 (0.00018 ng/L)
0 (0.88 ug/L) 2.3
17.8 ug/L
15 mg/L 21.5
0 (25.8 mg/L)
(2.8 ug/L) 2.0
(2.0 ug/L)
12
5 mg/L (organoleptic)
EPA Water Quality Criteria (45 FR
adjusted values are not official
(mg/L)
10-day Chronic
( longer
term)
0.175 0.02
2.2 0.34
0.2 0.075
1.2 0.62
79318-79379, November 28,
EPA Water Quality
liters/day for drinking water and 6.5 grama/day for fish; human body weight was assumed to be 70 kilograms.
Criteria designated as organoleptic are based on taste and odor effects, not hunan health effects. Health-based Water Quality Criteria are not
available for these chemicals.
The criterion for all carcinogens is tero; the concentration given in parentheses corresponds to a carcinogenic risk of 10 . Water Quality
Criteria documents present concentrations resulting in risks from 10 to 10~ . To obtain concentrations corresponding to risks.of 10, and 10"5,
the 10 concentrations should be multiplied by 100 and 10, respectively. To obtain concentrations corresponding to risk of 10 , 10
concentrations should be divided by 10.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-2. (continued)
Annual maximum concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year.
Chloroform is one of four trihaloraethanes whose sum concentration must be less than O.I mg/L.
As a guide in devising implementation plans for achieving oxidant standards.
I Seven-day health advisory for benzene and benzo(a)pyrene In kerosene, respectively,
t—' h
•£* Annual arithmetic mean concentration.
Annual geometric mean concentration.
Activity corresponding to total body or any internal organ dose of 4 mrem/year.
Total trihaloraethanes refers to the sum concentration of chloroform, broraodichloromethane f dibroraochlororaethane, and bromoform.
-------
3. Those that exceed applicable or relevant standards, as appropriate;
4. Those that do not attain applicable or relevant standards but will
reduce the likelihood of present or future threats to public health;
and
5. A no action alternative.
In completing the public health evaluation, the extent to which each
alternative attains or exceeds relevant or applicable standards, criteria,
advisories, or guidance should be carefully documented. If no relevant or
applicable standards exist, all of the alternatives will fall in categories 1,
3, and 5 above. Chapter 4 also discusses five specific circumstances that may
exist which would justify selection of an alternative in the fourth category
above, even if relevant or applicable standards do exist. The analysis of an
alternative in the last category must be carefully documented.
5.4.1 Assumptions Underlying Applicable and Relevant Standards
Since the applicable and relevant standards in Table 4-1 and 5-2 were
developed under a variety of statutes, many incorporate economic or scientific
factors that do not match specific conditions at a CERCLA site. For example,
the standards generally do not consider simultaneous exposures from multiple
routes. Standards may also be based on different levels, durations, or
frequencies of exposure than are likely at a specific site. The assumptions
underlying the Tables 4-1 and 5-2 standards that are most frequently relevant
and applicable at Superfund sites are discussed briefly in the following
sections.
5.4.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Hazardous Waste
Regulations (40 CFR 264)
Portions of these regulations include technology based requirements for
ground-water protection, closure and post-closure actions, surface impound-
ments, waste piles, land treatment, landfills, and incinerators. In some
cases, these requirements may not be applicable or relevant to specific site
conditions such as in the cases where 200 miles of roadway shoulder was
contaminated with PCBs, or where acres of forest were sprayed with waste
substances. In other cases, these regulations require meeting public health-
based standards (either background, SDWA Maximum Contaminant Levels, or
Alternate Concentration Limits) as cleanup standards for corrective action.
The background and MCL standards may be used directly in developing a remedial
alternative. An ACL, however, requires a demonstration that concentrations
higher than an MCL will not be adverse to human health or the environment.
The EPA Office of Solid Waste is revising its ACL guidance. In the interim,
it is advisable to consult with OSW or OERR headquarters staff to determine
whether an ACL is an appropriate standard to pursue.
5-15
-------
5.4.3 National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards (NIPDWs) and
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
Standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act are promulgated as MCLs,
which represent the allowable levels in public water systems. As a matter of
policy, CERCLA will also use them for other drinking water exposures. They
are generally based on lifetime exposure to the contaminant for a 70-kg
(154-pound) adult who consumes 2 liters (0.53 gallons) of water per day. The
total environmental exposure to contaminants was generally considered in
calculating specific MCLs. EPA estimated the amount of the substance to which
the average person is likely to be exposed from all sources (air, food, water,
etc.), and then determined the fraction of the total intake from drinking
water.
In addition to addressing health factors, an MCL is required by law to
reflect the technological and economic feasibility of removing the contaminant
from the water supply. The limit set must be feasible given the
best available technology and treatment techniques. A margin of safety is
included in each of the standards. Safety margins vary from chemical to
chemical because of the very different risks associated with each. EPA is now
developing recommended MCLs (RMCLs) for drinking water based entirely on
health considerations.
5.4.4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
In developing NAAQS, all sources of exposure to the contaminant (food,
water, air, etc.) are considered in determining the health risk. In addition,
by statute, NAAQS must be based exclusively on the air quality criteria issued
by EPA for each air pollutant. The Clean Air Act does not require EPA to
consider the economics of achieving the standards or the technological feasi-
bility of implementing them. Standards can be promulgated as annual maximums,
annual geometric means, or annual arithmetic means, or for other time periods
from one hour to one year, depending on the pollutant.
Primary standards must allow an adequate safety margin for unidentified
hazards and effects, though no rule is used in setting this margin. The law
requires EPA to direct its attention to particularly sensitive citizens, such
as bronchial asthmatics and emphysematics. In developing primary NAAQS, EPA
must specify the nature and severity of the health effects of each contami-
nant, characterize the pertinent sensitive population, determine probable
adverse health effects for this population, and estimate the level below which
an adequate safety margin reduces or eliminates risks. Primary NAAQS thus
depend mainly on the direct health effects of chemicals to sensitive groups
calculated according to scientific data.
5-16
-------
5.A.5 Federal Water Quality Criteria and State Water Quality Standards
Federal water quality criteria for protecting human health now cover
62 of 65 classes of toxic pollutants. The health assessment criterion is an
estimate of the ambient surface water concentration that will not result in
adverse health effects in humans, or, in the case of suspect or proven
carcinogens, the concentrations associated with incremental cancer risks.
The Federal criteria are nonenforceable guidelines and, therefore, are
listed as other criteria to be considered in Table 4-2. However, many
States have used these criteria in developing enforceable ambient water
quality standards. These State standards are considered applicable and
relevant to Superfund remedial actions for surface water situations that
involve either drinking water or fish ingestion exposure routes.
Water quality standards establish goals for specific water bodies and
also serve as the regulatory basis for water quality-based controls beyond
the technology-based levels of treatment required by sections 301(b) and 306
of the Clean Water Act. Water quality standards are adopted by States (or,
where necessary, promulgated by EPA) to protect the public health or welfare
and enhance water quality. A water quality standard consists of two main
parts: (1) specification of designated use (or uses) that considers the
water body's value for public water supplies; propagation of fish, shell-
fish, and wildlife; recreational use; navigation; and agricultural, indus-
trial, and other purposes; and (2) criteria specifying numerical limits or
other factors necessary to protect the designated use.
States must adopt water quality standards stringent enough to protect
designated uses. Numerical criteria may be based on EPA recommendations or
on other scientifically defensible methods. States may also modify EPA's
recommended criteria to reflect local environmental conditions and human
exposure patterns. When a criterion to protect human health must be devel-
oped for a chemical that has no national criterion, the user should consult
EPA Headquarters for assistance. The latest guidelines for deriving health-
related water quality criteria are published in 45 FR 79341 (November 28,
1980). Guidance (unpublished) on modifying human health criteria may be
found in the JRB Associates (1982) report "Suggested Protocol by Which
States Could Recommend Surface Water Quality Criteria for Specific Water
Bodies for the Purpose of Protecting Human Health" (EPA, Office of Water
Regulation and Standards). In general, the user will be directed toward
specific risk level ranges as described in section 5.7.
2
States with specific numerical ambient standards for toxics include
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Delaware,
Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Appropriate agencies in other states should be consulted to determine if
standards have recently been adopted.
5-17
-------
For most chemicals, Federal water quality criteria to protect human
health are available for two different exposure pathways. One criterion is
based on ingestion of both drinking water and aquatic organisms, and the
other is based on ingestion of aquatic organisms alone. The criteria cal-
culations incorporate the assumption that a 70-kilogram adult consumes 2
liters of water and/or 6.5 grams of aquatic organisms daily for a 70-year
lifetime. Of course, calculations can be made to derive an adjusted cri-
terion for drinking water ingestion only, based on the two published
criteria and the same dose assumptions. Table 5-2 lists these adjusted
criteria by chemical, along with the published criteria for combined
drinking water and aquatic organism ingestion. The adjusted criteria are
more appropriate for Superfund sites with groundwater contamination because
the criteria are based on a more realistic exposure assumption.
5.4.6 PCBs
Superfund remedial actions should consider EPA's current draft PCB
cleanup policy currently under development by the Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances under authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Headquarters should be consulted to determine the impact of this policy on
specific RI/FS projects. All disposal of PCBs must be in accordance with
the PCB disposal and labeling regulations (40 CFR 761).
5.5 CONSIDER OTHER CRITERIA AND ADVISORIES
Tables 4-2 and 5-2 list other criteria, advisories and guidance that
should be considered in the development and evaluation of alternatives.
5.5.1 Criteria for Noncarcinogens
On the basis of a survey of the toxicological literature, EPA has
developed a "no observed adverse effect level" (NOAEL) for many chemicals.
The NOAELs are usually based on animal studies, although human data are used
wherever available. Safety factors are then applied to account for the
uncertainty in using available data to calculate human effects resulting in
an acceptable daily intake (ADI). Criteria (e.g., water concentrations) are
derived from the ADIs and the standard dose assumptions given above.
5.5.2 Criteria for Carcinogens
The same exposure pathways and dose assumptions are used for carcino-
gens as for noncarcinogens. A literature search of human and animal car-
cinogenic effects forms the basis for EPA's estimate of the risk posed by
potential human carcinogens. There is no scientific basis for estimating
5-18
-------
"safe" levels of carcinogens because there is no way at present to establish
a threshold for carcinogenic effects. Criteria for all carcinogens state
that the recommended concentration for maximum protection of human health is
zero. EPA has also estimated water concentrations corresponding to incre-
mental risk levels using a linear, nonthreshold extrapolation model.
Extrapolation models provide only an estimate of risk, but are the best
available tool for describing the potential threat of a substance, given
certain assumptions. In its criteria, EPA provides water7concentrations_,.
corresponding to incremental lifetime cancer risks of 10 ,10 , and 10
5.5.3 Health Advisories (SNARLs)
In addition to MCLs, EPA also provides drinking water suppliers with
guidance on chemicals that may be intermittently encountered in water sys-
tems and are believed to pose a near-term risk, yet are unregulated in
drinking water. These guidelines are developed by the Office of Drinking
Water in the form of health advisories or SNARLs. Health advisories are not
mandatory. They are calculated to reflect the consumption and toxicological
characteristics of a 10-kg child (1-year-old infant) who consumes an esti-
mated 1 liter of water daily. SNARLs are calculated for three exposure
levels: 1 day, 7 or 10 days, and for a longer term (weeks or months). A
safety margin is factored in to protect the most sensitive members of the
general population. However, SNARLs ignore carcinogenic risks and synergis-
tic effects of chemicals. SNARLs for certain chemicals contain carcinogenic
risk estimates that can be used when appropriate.
5.6 ADJUSTMENT OF STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
As a result of various technical aspects of standards development, some
concentration limits will require adjustment before being applied to a spe-
cific site. The first step is to determine whether each concentration limit
is directly applicable or must be adjusted for the specific site conditions.
As an illustration of this, water quality criteria, which were developed for
surface water, can be adjusted for ground water by recalculating and
excluding the assumption of fish ingestion (as in Table 5-2). Additional
guidance on adjusting standards for specific sites is under development.
5.7 UNAVAILABLE OR INAPPROPRIATE STANDARDS
As Table 5-2 shows, relevant or applicable ambient concentration limits
are not available for all media for many chemicals commonly found at
Superfund sites.
Where no relevant or applicable standards are available, the user
should consult headquarters on a case-by-case basis for further guidance.
In general, headquarters will instruct the user to develop at least one
5-19
-------
option that corresponds to a 10 risk level. In addition, the user will be
instructed to develop reasonable alternatives that correspond to a 10 to
10 risk level. The specific manner of presentation of exposure and risk
levels will be in accordance with Agency guidelines (USEPA, 1984a-f).
Further, it may be necessary for headquarters to request review by other
program offices to determine the appropriate response.
Guidance on risk assessment is under development for those situations
where relevant or applicable standards are not available for every chemical
of concern. The guidance will specify procedures for both carcinogens and
non-carcinogens, and will address the issue of chemical mixtures.
Furthermore, the guidance will specify the risk range that alternatives will
be designed to meet.
5.8 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION
A summary of the public health effectiveness must be presented for each
alternative analyzed. This includes an evaluation of the extent to which
each alternative attains, exceeds, or falls short of applicable or relevant
environmental standards. Where these are not available, the analysis for
management of migration alternatives should evaluate the risks of various
exposure levels projected or remaining after implementation of the
alternative under consideration. Table 5-3 presents key questions to be
summarized in quantifying the public health effects associated with each
alternative. The summary presentation is also addressed in chapter 8.
5-20
-------
TABLE 5-3. SUMMARY OF KEY PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION QUESTIONS
A. Technical issues
1. What technologies will minimize or prevent
exposures otherwise expected at the site?
2. What chemical releases will be minimized or
prevented by the remedial action?
3. What chemical releases will not be minimized or
prevented?
4. Over what time will chemical concentrations be
reduced at receptor locations, e.g., on-site, at
drinking water intakes, in ambient air, etc.?
(Be as specific as possible, providing
qualifications if necessary.)
B. Exposure issues
1. What exposure is expected during the remedial
action?
2. What exposure is expected after the remedial
action?
3. What relevant and applicable standards will be
met/not met?
4. What other criteria, guidance or advisories will
be met?
5. What adjustments were made to standards,
criteria, advisories, or guidance?
5-21
-------
-------
CHAPTER 6
EVALUATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In developing and evaluating response alternatives, a major concern is
adequate remediation and protection of the environment. The National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) requires, in section
300.68(i)(2)(D) :
An assessment of each alternative in terms of the extent
to which it is expected to effectively mitigate and
minimize damage to, and provide adequate protection of,
public health, welfare, and the environment, relative to
the other alternatives analyzed....
Section 300.68(i)(2)(E) requires:
An analysis of any adverse environmental impacts, methods
for mitigating these impacts, and costs of mitigation.
This chapter provides guidance for preparing the environmental
assessment of proposed remedial alternatives. Generally accepted methods of
environmental analysis will be appropriate for many hazardous waste sites,
but unique conditions may require innovative procedures. The evaluation of
alternatives should be performed by persons with expertise in the environ-
mental sciences and should be based on the best available data and evalua-
tion techniques appropriate for the particular site and the alternatives
being addressed.
Environmental contamination is often widespread and may originate from
several sources. The environmental assessment should focus on the site
problems and pathways of contamination actually addressed by the alterna-
tives identified through screening. The environmental assessment will help
determine which remedial alternativeCs) will achieve adequate protection and
improvement of the environment at those sites where environmental damage is
an important consideration. A detailed analysis of environmental effects
need not be performed when they are not within the scope of those alter-
natives. However, any known environmental problems not addressed by the
remedial alternatives should be clearly described.
1Federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 137, July 16, 1982.
6-1
-------
6.1 OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An environmental assessment of the "no-action" alternative should be
performed for all sites. This environmental assessment describes the
current site situation and the environmental conditions anticipated if no
emergency or remedial actions are taken. The assessment should (1) deter-
mine the value (or uses) of the areas that are contaminated or threatened
with contamination, (2) identify the types of impacts that are likely, and
(3) assess the general significance of the impacts.
The user can forego detailed analysis of the adverse effects of any
remedial alternatives under consideration if the preliminary analysis
conducted during the screening stage shows that implementation will not
result in any of the following:
• A substantial increase in airborne emissions
• A new discharge to surface or ground waters
• An increase in the volume of loading of a pollutant from existing
sources or a new facility to receiving waters
• Known or expected significant adverse effects on the environment or
on human use of environmental resources
• Known or expected direct or indirect adverse effects on environ-
mentally sensitive resources or areas, such as wetlands, prime and
unique agricultural lands, aquifer recharge zones, archeological and
historical sites, and endangered and threatened species.
The above criteria are based on the concepts of categorical exclusion as
provided for in the National Environmental Policy Act and subsequent
regulations (40 CFR 1508.4; 40 CFR 6.107, 6.506) and the provisions for a
finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 1508.13), which exempts Federal
agencies from preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. If an
alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts and, therefore,
does not' require preparation of a detailed environmental assessment of
adverse effects, a statement should be prepared that documents that finding
and summarizes the supporting reasoning.
6.2 EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE RESPONSES
The environmental assessment should address the effects of each
remedial alternative under consideration, including long-term and short-term
effects. The level of detail in the environmental assessment should depend
on the degree of actual or potential damage to the environment providing the
impetus for response. The appropriate level of detail will be determined by
the user but should be adequate to compare the expected environmental
6-2
-------
benefits of different alternatives meaningfully and to determine the extent
of the impacts of remedial construction and operations. Such information
should assure the public and EPA that the impacts of remedial measures are
not significant or result from the only viable option, and should identify
problem areas and suggest measures for mitigating adverse impacts.
Factors generally considered in determining the detail demanded
include the following: (1) effects on environmentally sensitive areas,
(2) violation of environmental standards, (3) short- and long-term effects,
and (4) irreversible commitments of resources.
Findings should be presented to allow comparing the environmental
effects of alternatives. Environmental effects of remedial actions may
include a wide range of effects, including hydrology, geology, air quality,
biology, socioeconomics, land use, and archeological and historical sites.
In general, each alternative should be evaluated by considering such
beneficial effects of the response as changes in the release of contaminants
and final environmental conditions, improvements in the biological
environment, and improvements in the resources that people use. Expected
adverse effects of remedial construction or operations should also be
considered in addition to the effects of the final remedy. Each of these
topics is discussed further below.
The evaluation should discuss both primary and secondary effects of the
remedial action. Primary effects of the remedy are direct adverse or bene-
ficial results and are generally associated with the immediate reason for
taking action at the site. Direct adverse effects may result from construc-
tion activities, from stabilization following completion of the construc-
tion, or from long-term remedial activities. Indirect adverse or beneficial
results of the alternative, such as effects on the economy of the area or on
migration patterns, generally should not be discussed unless special
circumstances affect environmental impacts.
6.2.1 Beneficial Effects of the Response
6.2.1.1 Changes in the Release of Contaminants and Final
Environmental Conditions
The user should estimate the effects of remedial measures in terms of
the concentrations of contaminants in each environmental medium of concern,
both during and after these measures, and the time required to reach desired
levels. These evaluations should be the same or similar in content and
closely coordinated with those for technical performance and implement-
ability, discussed in chapter 3.
Federal legislation and regulations relevant to assessing environmental
impacts were discussed in chapter 4, notably the Clean Water Act; Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; the Clean Air Act and the
6-3
-------
National Environmental Policy Act. The regulations under these Acts can
provide benchmarks to evaluate current or anticipated environmental
conditions.
The ambient residual contamination predicted for different remedial
alternatives should be compared to existing criteria and standards. How-
ever, available environmental criteria and standards may not always be
suitable for direct comparison. The user should determine if the site
conditions are substantially different from those used to calculate the
criteria. If they are, the criteria should be adapted to actual site con-
ditions. The user should consult with Federal and State agency personnel
who have expertise in modifying criteria or in determining criteria for
substances that had none. The following sections summarize criteria that
have been developed or can be obtained by consultation with Federal and
State officials.
Surface Water. Water quality standards establish goals for specific
water bodies and also serve as the basis for*water quality-based controls
beyond the technology-based levels of treatment required by sections 301(b)
and 306 of the Clean Water Act. Water quality standards are adopted by
States (or, where necessary, promulgated by EPA) to protect the public
health or welfare and enhance the quality of the water. A water quality
standard consists of two main parts: (1) a specification of designated use
(or uses) that considers the water body's value for public water supplies;
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife; recreational use; navigation;
and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes; and (2) criteria specify-
ing numerical limits or other factors necessary to protect the designated
use.
States must adopt water quality criteria stringent enough to protect
the designated uses. Table 6-1 identifies States with water quality stan-
dards by type of standard. Numerical criteria may be based on EPA recom-
mendations or on other scientifically defensible methods. States may also
modify EPA's recommended criteria and set site-specific criteria where (1)
background water quality parameters, such as pH, hardness, temperature, and
color, appear to differ significantly from the laboratory water used in
developing EPA's recommended criteria, or (2) the types of local aquatic
organisms differ significantly from those actually tested in developing the
EPA's recommended criteria or have adapted to higher pollutant levels.
Guidance on modifying national criteria on aquatic life is found in the
"Water Quality Standards Handbook" (EPA, December 1983) and the "Draft
Technical Support Document For Water Quality-Based Toxics Control" (EPA,
Office of Water Regulation and Standards, November 28, 1980). When a
criterion must be developed for a chemical for which a national criterion
has not been established, the user should consult EPA headquarters for
assistance. Guidelines for developing water quality criteria for aquatic
life are published in 45 FR 79341 (November 28, 1980). Revisions to these
guidelines have been proposed; see 49 FR 4553 (February 7, 1984).
The revised water quality standards regulation (see 40 CFR 131; 48 FR
51400, November 8, 1983) emphasizes criteria for toxic pollutants in State
6-4
-------
TABLE 6-1. AVAILABILITY OF STATE AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
OR STANDARDS FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES
State
Freshwater Criteria
or Standards
(Numerical)
Saltwater Criteria
or Standards
(Numerical)
Comments
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Numerical criteria
are effluent
limits for total
chlorinated
pesticides, PCBs,
and radioactivity
Adopted 304(a)
guidance
Currently revising
WQS to include
numerical criteria
for freshwater
(continued)
Includes both organic and inorganic contaminants.
Narrative "free-form" toxics criteria for freshwater and saltwater are
available for all states.
6-5
-------
TABLE 6-1. (continued)'
State
Freshwater Criteria
or Standards
(Numerical)
Saltwater Criteria
or Standards
(Numerical)
Comments
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Criteria are only
for rivers that
have drinking
water use desig-
nations
X
X
Includes both organic inorganic contaminants.
'Narrative "free-form" toxics criteria for freshwater and saltwater are
available for all states.
6-6
-------
standards as the basis for permit limitations under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System. Most State standards do not include numerical
criteria for many toxic chemicals. When standards do not specify criteria
for toxic chemicals, guidance documents on criteria or literature reports
are used. All States have a general narrative requirement in their water
quality standards that their waters must not contain toxic substances in
toxic amounts. Most State standards include a narrative criterion for fish
and wildlife designated uses that applies after mixing and requires no
chronic toxicity to representative test organisms. These State standards
typically include application factors for deriving a discharge chronic
toxicity value from an acute toxicity value (i.e., 0.05 for nonpersistent
wastes and 0.01 for persistent wastes).
Ground Water. The ground-water policy discussed in chapter 4 provides
guidance but not specific ground-water criteria. The user should consult
guidance documents appropriate to ground-water protection when they become
available from OGWP.
Soils. Two general types of threats should be considered when
developing criteria for soils: (1) direct contact by intruders onto the
site, and (2) contamination of other environmental media by the soils.
Unfortunately, there are no currently promulgated environmental criteria or
standards for contaminants in soils, except PCB-contaminated soils, which
are subject to TSCA limits. However, procedures for closing existing land-
fills under RCRA may provide relevant approaches. Also, action levels such
as the 1 ppb limit for dioxin established by ASTDR for the Minker Stout site
in Missouri may provide further guidance.
Air. Hazardous air pollutants at sites create a serious threat to
worker health and safety during investigations and remedial action. Serious
air pollution may also result from migration of toxic gases to the surround-
ing environment and nearby populations. In most instances, a serious air
pollution problem would have an impact on public health.
Guidance on source emissions can be obtained from section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, which defines an ambient hazardous air pollutant as a sub-
stance emitted by a stationary source ("any building, structure, facility,
or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant") that, according
to EPA, "causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to result in an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness." EPA is also required
by the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments to review the primary and secondary
standards for major criteria pollutants. Users should consult these crite-
ria whenever such pollutants are released into the atmosphere from the site.
When commercial crops are threatened by airborne substances some
measure of the air quality should be developed to take account of crop
damage. The National Crop Loss Assessment Network gathers data on the
relationships between yields of major agricultural crops and exposure to
substances like sulfur dioxide.
6-7
-------
6.2.1.2 Improvement in the Biological Environment
The user should describe the remedial alternatives' likely improvements
in the biological environment. An uncontrolled waste site often threatens
nearby biological communities, for example, by changing the ecological
structure that supports organisms. The ability of alternatives to reduce or
eliminate such threats should be clearly stated.
The user should note the benefits of the alternative, especially with
regard to:
• Sole source aquifers
• Wetlands
• Floodplains
• Coastal zone
• Critical habitats
• Prime agricultural lands
• Federal parklands
• National forests
• Wildlife sanctuaries and refuges
• Habitat productivity.
Discussion of these areas can be found in regulations protecting them
and in research reports. However, in many cases the user is urged to con-
sult with the relevant Federal, State, local fish and wildlife agencies, and
universities for more specific information.
Sole Source Aquifers. A sole source aquifer is designated under
section 1424(a)(l) of the Safe Drinking Water Act as being the sole or
principal drinking water source for an area and, if contaminated, a signif-
icant hazard to public health. EPA has now designated 17 sole source
aquifers and is considering petitions for other areas.
Wetlands. Wetlands are areas inundated or saturated by surface water
or ground water frequently and persistently enough to support vegetation
adapted to saturated soil. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas, and may be defined by referring to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Circular 39 (1956) and later revisions resulting from the National
Wetlands Inventory. A wetlands assessment must be conducted as part of the
feasibility study. EPA is preparing a formal policy for conducting wetlands
assessments at Superfund sites. Information on environmental stress and
remedial actions for wetlands can be obtained from the U.S. Department of
the Interior, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and appropriate State offices.
6-8
-------
Floodplains. One-hundred-year floodplains are designated on Flood
Hazard Boundary Maps and Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The user should include a
flood assessment if the site is on or near a floodplain. EPA is preparing a
formal policy for conducting floodplains assessments at Superfund sites.
Information on floodplains can be obtained from the Federal Insurance
Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and appropriate
State agencies.
Coastal Zones. Coastal zones are areas subject to management plans
under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Information on the effects of
releases on coastal zones can be obtained from the Department of Commerce
and from State agencies with management responsibilities under the Coastal
Zone Management Act.
Critical Habitats of Threatened or Endangered Species. The Secretary
of the Interior has determined that certain habitats are critical to the
continued existence of threatened or endangered species listed under section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Information about effects of
releases on threatened and endangered species and critical habitats can be
obtained from the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce,
and State fish and wildlife agencies.
Prime and Unique Farmland. The Department of Agriculture's Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) must keep an inventory of important farmlands
(7 CFR 757.5). Prime farmland has the best combination of physical and
chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oil-
seed crops. It is also available for pasture, range, and forest land.
Unique farmland produces specific high-value food and fiber crops. If the
user suspects that prime and unique farmlands are threatened by a site's
condition, he or she should contact the State SCS office to verify the
farmland's status. Any beneficial effects on such areas should be included
in the feasibility study.
Federal Parklands. Federal parklands are areas of recognized scenic,
recreational, archeological, or historical value. As required by regula-
tion, when the resource affected is designated by the Federal government,
the Federal management agency responsible for the area should be consulted.
Designated areas included are national parks, national wilderness areas,
national recreational areas, national wild and scenic rivers, national
historic places, national natural resource areas, and national wildlife
refuges.
National Forests. If a site's condition threatens national forest
land, the user should consult the U.S. Forest Service at the Department of
Agriculture. The Forest Service is required by the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the National Forest Management
Act of 1976 to prepare Federal and regional management plans. The user
should note the effects of remedial activities on these plans.
6-9
-------
Wildlife Sanctuaries and Refuges. Various land management systems
protect wildlife sanctuaries and refuges. Public lands are managed by the
Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National
Park Service, the Water and Power Resources Service, the U.S. Forest
Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Public
sanctuaries and refuges are identified in the following systems:
• National park system
• National wildlife refuge system
• National wilderness preservation system
• Wild and scenic river system
• National trail system
• Marine and estuarine sanctuaries program.
State, local, and private sanctuaries should also be considered. Fish and
wildlife agencies are good sources of information.
Habitat Productivity. The productivity of the habitat of a
commercially or recreationally important species can be threatened by the
discharge from an uncontrolled site. Such reduction in productivity can
take various forms:
• Loss of species
• Changes in their relative abundance
• Changes in their sizes
• Changes in their age structure.
In such cases, the user should note the species and their habitats and
discuss the improvement expected from each alternative. The user may wish
to consult the EPA STORET water quality file for data on water quality
indicator substances. States often have standards for specific habitats and
harvesting areas. The user should consult the appropriate public health and
fish and wildlife agencies.
6.2.1.3 Improvements in Resources People Use
Often an uncontrolled site damages or threatens to damage resources
people use. Many of these resources, such as fishing waters and recreation-
al areas, directly affect the welfare of local communities. Users should
note the ability of alternatives to protect present or potential human uses
of resources, especially commercial, residential, recreational, esthetic,
and cultural uses.
Commercial Uses. Many environmental resources at sites provide
important goods and services traded in the marketplace. Commercially
6-10
-------
harvested fish are one example (public health concerns also arise in this
case because fish is a food). Tackle shops, boat rentals, and hotels can
all be affected by deterioration in the environment supporting their goods
and services. Sometimes commercial crops are threatened by airborne sub-
stances from a site, such as sulfur dioxide and ethylene. The user should
consult the National Crop Loss Assessment Network to determine the alter-
natives' likely improvements. Ground water is a natural resource supporting
commercial activities, such as irrigation and water use at commercial facil-
ities. When such activities are affected by the loss or reduction of ground
water from discharges at the site, the benefits of the alternatives for com-
mercial activities should be noted.
Residential Uses. Unpleasant physical impacts of the site—such as
curtailment of water supply, unpleasant odors, loss of property values,
disruption in living patterns, outward migration, and loss of employment—
are important considerations in determining the desirability of the remedial
alternatives. The user should evaluate the effects of site remediation on
residential land use.
Recreational Uses. Response alternatives can improve recreational
activities by restoring the environmental resource damaged by the discharge.
Open beaches, public waterways, and lakes are among the resources for
hunting, fishing, birdwatching, swimming, and camping. Standard parameters
measuring recreational uses are number of visitors, number of visitor days,
crowd densities, number of licenses, and average catch.
Esthetic Uses. Many environmental resources are appreciated for their
esthetic value, which can be impaired either by a discharge or by the
response to it. Esthetic value is a subjective matter, and the users of
this manual should not be encumbered with an in-depth study of site
esthetics. The user's own judgment supported by consultation with local
community associations should determine the extent of concern.
6.2.2 Adverse Effects of the Response
6.2.2.1 Expected Effects of Remedial Alternatives
The user should identify and evaluate any expected adverse effects of
remedial construction and operations. In identifying these effects, the
user should especially consider sensitive environmental areas and resources
people use. The user should distinguish inevitable effects from possible
ones, so that the evaluation of alternatives can estimate the probability of
expected adverse effects. Equally important is recognizing that some
effects are irreversible. The users should state that effects are rever-
sible or irreversible if they are significant.
6-11
-------
6.2.2.2 Mitigative Measures
If any alternative appears to have significant inevitable or irreversi-
ble effects, the user should state the mitigative measures to be taken in
conjunction with the alternative. The statement should discuss the tech-
nology to be employed and its expected mitigating effects (e.g., percentage
reduction in adverse effects). It is generally assumed that mitigating
measures will not affect the success of remedial alternatives. If success
may be compromised by the mitigative measure, the user should note this.
6.3 OTHER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
The user can obtain assistance in developing an assessment program by
consulting information on other environmental damage assessment procedures.
These procedures have been developed by State and Federal agencies charged
with protecting environmental resources. Most have been field tested and
reflect the need for applicability rather than the higher methodological
rigor characteristic of research. An important element in these procedures
is selecting assessment methods that can be used given available time and
resources. The following references may be particularly useful:
• Department of Ecology, Washington State, "Guideline for Evaluating
Freshwater Resources Damages," 1980.
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Marine Resource
Damage Contingency Plan," U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 1980.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Habitat as a Basis for Environ-
mental Assessment," Ecological Service Manual 101. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1980.
• Department of Fishery, Washington State, "Marine Water Quality
Compendium of Washington State," 1979.
• State of Alaska, "Alaska Oil Spill Status Booklet," 1982.
• Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, "Field Guide for Scientific
Support Activities Associated with Superfund Responses," Battelle
Memorial Institute, 1979.
6.4 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The output format suggested here condenses the discussion of alter-
natives to five composite criteria. The format is illustrated in Table 6-2.
6-12
-------
TABLE 6-2. SUGGESTED SUMMARY FORM FOR USE BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL SECTION
TO EVALUATE REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Beneficial Effects
Adverse Effects
Final
Environmental
Alternative Conditions
Improvements In
Biological
Environment
Improvements In
Human Use
Resource
Const/Operation
Mltlgatlve Measures
1st
2nd
3nd
4th
Indicate whether adverse effects are expected to be reversible or Irreversible over time.
-------
The relative desirability of each alternative should be described with
respect to each of the evaluation criteria. The user may choose to describe
the alternatives in order of their relative desirability with respect to
each criterion, or to describe them on an absolute basis according to the
degree to which they fulfill each criterion. Whichever method is chosen,
the user should provide a consistent discussion of each alternative.
6-14
-------
CHAPTER 7
CONDUCT A DETAILED COST ANALYSIS
This chapter outlines the recommended approach to developing and
analyzing costs for each of the remedial action alternatives remaining after
initial screening (see chapter 2). EPA is developing a "Remedial Action
Costing Procedures Manual" which presents more detailed costing procedures.
The object of the costing exercise is to develop cost estimates for alter-
natives, as specified in section 300.68(i)(2)(B)1 of the NCP:
(i) Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
(1) A more detailed evaluation will be conducted of the limited
number of alternatives that remain after the initial
screening in paragraph [h]
(2) The detailed analysis of each alternative should include....
(B) Detailed cost estimation, including distribution of
costs over time....
In developing detailed cost estimates, the user should perform the fol-
lowing steps:
1. Estimation of costs: Estimate capital and operation and
maintenance costs for remedial action alternatives.
2. Present worth analysis: Using estimated costs, calculate annual
costs and present worth for each remedial action alternative.
3. Sensitivity analysis: Evaluate the sensitivity of cost estimates
to changes in key parameters, such as discount rates.
4. Summarization of alternatives analysis: Summarize data used in the
alternatives analysis for use in selecting a remedial action
alternative.
Figure 7-1 illustrates these steps, which are discussed in the following
sections.
federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 137, July 16, 1982.
7-1
-------
FIGURE 7-1. Feasibility Study Cost Evaluation Process
Remedial
Investigation
Estimation of
Costs
Present Worth
Analysis
Feasibility
Study
Cost Evaluation
Activities
Sensitivity
Analysis
Input to
Alternatives
Analysis
Selection of
Remedial Alternative
7-2
-------
7.1 ESTIMATION OF COSTS
The user should identify all capital and operation and maintenance
costs for each remedial action alternative, and estimate the cost of these
components using the sources suggested below under section 7.1.3, "Sources
of Cost Information." Where cost estimates are derived from data a year or
more old, they should be updated using the cost indices discussed under
section 7.1.4, "Updating Costs."
Federal construction programs have traditionally distinguished capital
costs from operation and maintenance costs. This distinction is not easily
made for Superfund response activities. Often, the completion of construc-
tion will not achieve public health or environmental protection, which may
be attained only after the remedial technology has operated for a period of
time.
However, the distinction must be made to determine which costs are
eligible under Superfund. Therefore, Superfund response activities should
be divided into two phases for the purposes of determining Fund eligibility:
remedial action and post-closure.
Only costs incurred during the remedial action phase are eligible for
funding under Superfund. EPA defines remedial actions as activities
required to prevent or mitigate migration of hazardous materials released
from an uncontrolled site. Remedial actions are directed at achieving
cleanup goals. Post-closure activities occur after completion of the
remedial action and include continued operations necessary to stop such
releases.
The remedial action phase may include activities that have
traditionally been considered operation and maintenance costs, as when
construction by itself will not achieve cleanup goals. For example, a
remedial action addressing ground water contamination may involve pumping,
treating, and reinjecting ground water in order to achieve site cleanup.
Costs associated with treatment system construction, and continued operation
(e.g., labor and utilities) may be eligible. Costs associated with equip-
ment replacement or continued operation following achievement of safe con-
taminant concentrations would be ineligible for funding. It is important to
note that EPA policy regarding Fund eligibility is currently being reviewed.
Therefore, a review of the most recent policy may be necessary at the time
of feasibility analysis.
In general, the following criteria should be used to distinguish
remedial actions from post-closure activities:
• Remedial actions include measures that (1) control contamination at
or near the source of the release, (2) result in the initial miti-
gation of a release to levels protecting public health, welfare, and
the environment, (3) have a definable endpoint based on contaminant
levels, (4) are related to the initial construction effort (i.e.,
capping), or are of limited duration (usually less than 4 years).
7-3
-------
• Post-closure activities include measures that (1) are required to
maintain releases at levels protective of public health, welfare,
and the environment, (2) require long-term implementation, (3) have
no definable endpoint, (4) maintain the physical integrity of the
remedy, or (5) provide for scheduled monitoring or repair.
While the distinction between remedial action and post-closure
activities is made for purposes of determining eligibility, it should not be
a factor in feasibility cost analysis. Cost estimates should give compara-
tive life-cycle cost information for the remedial action alternatives under
consideration. These alternatives should include all costs incurred as part
of both the remedial action and post-closure phases. As in conventional
construction, cost estimation distinctions are made between capital and
operation and maintenance costs.
7.1.1 Capital Costs
Capital costs consist of direct (construction) and indirect
(nonconstruction and overhead) costs. Direct costs include expenditures for
the equipment, labor, and materials necessary to install remedial actions.
Indirect costs include expenditures for engineering, financial, and other
services not part of actual installation activities but required to complete
the installation of remedial alternatives. Capital costs that must be
increased in future years as part of the remedial action alternative should
be identified and noted for the year in which they will occur. It is
particularly important to emphasize out year capital costs in the summary of
alternatives and to examine the impact of alternative discount rates in the
sensitivity analysis. These will be critical factors in making tradeoffs
between capital intensive technologies (including alternative treatment and
destruction technologies) and non-capital intensive technologies (such as
pump and treatment systems).
7.1.1.1 Direct Capital Costs
Direct capital costs may include:
• Construction costs: Costs of materials, labor (including fringe
benefits and worker's compensation), and equipment required to
install a remedial action.
• Equipment costs: Costs of remedial action and service equipment
necessary to enact the remedy; these materials remain until the site
remedy is complete.
• Land and site-development costs: Expenses associated with purchase
of land and development of existing property.
7-4
-------
• Buildings and services costs: Costs of process and nonprocess
buildings, utility connections, purchased services, and disposal
costs.
• Relocation expenses: Costs of temporary or permanent accommodations
for affected nearby residents. (Since cost estimates for reloca-
tions can be complicated, FEMA authorities and EPA Headquarters
should be consulted in estimating these costs.)
• Disposal costs: Costs of transporting and disposing of waste
materials, such as drums and contaminated soils.
7.1.1.2 Indirect Capital Costs
Indirect capital costs may include:
• Engineering expenses: Costs of administration, design, construction
supervision, drafting, and testing of remedial action alternatives.
• Legal fees and license or permit costs: Administrative and
technical costs necessary to obtain licenses and permits for
installation and operation.
• Startup and shakedown costs: Costs incurred during remedial action
startup.
• Contingency allowances: Funds to cover costs resulting from unfore-
seen circumstances, such as adverse weather conditions, strikes, and
inadequate site characterization.
7.1.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs
Operation and maintenance costs are post-construction costs necessary
to ensure continued effectiveness of a remedial action. The user should
consider the following operation and maintenance cost components:
• Operating labor costs: Wages, salaries, training, overhead, and
fringe benefits associated with the labor needed for post-
construction operations.
• Maintenance materials and labor costs: Costs for labor, parts, and
other resources required for routine maintenance of facilities and
equipment.
• Auxiliary materials and energy: Costs of such items as chemicals
and electricity for treatment plant operations, water and sewer
service, and fuel.
7-5
-------
• Purchased services: Sampling costs, laboratory fees, and
professional fees for which the need can be predicted.
• Administrative costs: Costs associated with administration of
remedial action operation and maintenance not included under other
categories.
• Insurance, taxes, and licensing costs: Costs of such items as
liability and sudden accidental insurance; real estate taxes on pur-
chased land or rights-of-way; licensing fees for certain technol-
ogies; and permit renewal and reporting costs.
• Maintenance reserve and contingency funds: Annual payments into
escrow funds to cover (1) costs of anticipated replacement or
rebuilding of equipment and (2) any large unanticipated operation
and maintenance costs.
• Rehabilitation costs: To maintain equipment or structures that wear
out over time.
• Other costs: Items that do not fit any of the above categories.
7.1.3 Sources of Cost Information
In estimating costs, the user should consider site-specific factors
identified in the remedial investigation and the development of remedial
action alternatives. The sources for these estimates are discussed below.
7.1.3.1 Vendor Estimates
Based on detailed site and design information, equipment vendors and
construction companies can provide site-specific remedial action construc-
tion and equipment cost estimates. Equipment vendors can provide informa-
tion on their equipment's service requirements. Equipment specifications
often provide information on auxiliary materials and energy usage costs.
Recommended maintenance schedules can provide a good indication of annual
costs, although they are often estimated as percentages of capital costs.
7.1.3.2 Estimates for Similar Projects
Estimates for similar projects or, preferably, actual experience with
such projects, are good sources of cost information. Where necessary, these
costs should be updated as described below in section 7.1.4.
7-6
-------
7.1.3.3 Standard Costing Guidance
Costs may also be estimated using standard costing guides such as the
"Means Guide" and the "Dodge Guide" and the various remedial action costing
manuals developed by the EPA, including the "Remedial Action Cost
Compendium" and the "Handbook: Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites"
(both published in 1982). If standard construction costing manuals are
used, the estimates should be adjusted to allow for the additional costs of
safety precautions and reduction of efficiency due to such precautions
(i.e., wearing protective equipment).
Labor and energy cost data are published by the Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics (Department of Labor) and Department of Energy, respectively. These
sources are particularly useful in determining regional differences in
labor, material, and energy costs.
7.1.4 Updating Costs
Cost estimates are frequently based on data several years old and must
be updated for the' current year. Appropriate cost indices include the
following:
• Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (capital costs of
construction)
• Marshall and Stevens Index (for treatment facility costs)
• American City and County Municipal Cost Index (manpower costs)
• The Producer Price Index for Finished Goods, published by the
Department of Labor in the Monthly Labor Review.
7.1.5 Accuracy of Cost Estimates
Detailed site characterization information from the remedial investiga-
tion should permit the user to refine cost estimates for remedial action
alternatives. In some cases, studies will be necessary to determine actual
design characteristics so costs can be accurately estimated. Although they
may be performed to obtain design data relevant to the feasibility study,
such studies should be considered part of the remedial investigation. Only
the results of these studies are addressed in the feasibility study. When
the applicability of the alternative has been established and can be esti-
mated with the required accuracy, the bench-scale studies could be delayed
until after the remedy has been accepted, in which case the engineer should
provide a best estimate of design parameters for use in estimating costs.
7-7
-------
It is important to consider the accuracy of costs developed for a
feasibility study. Typically, these "study estimate" costs provide an
accuracy of -30 to +50 percent, and are prepared at relatively low cost
using data available from the remedial investigation. Costs developed with
accuracies other than -30 to +50 percent should be identified in the
feasibility study.
7.2 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
Present worth analysis is used to evaluate expenditures that occur over
different time periods by discounting all future costs to a common base
year, usually the present. This allows the cost of remedial action alterna-
tives to be compared on the basis of a single figure representing the amount
of money, that, if invested in the base year and disbursed as needed, would
be sufficient to cover all costs associated with the remedial action over
its planned life.
In conducting the present worth analysis, assumptions must be made
regarding the discount rate and the period of performance. For the first, a
discount rate of 10 percent before taxes and after inflation should be
assumed, as outlined in OMB Circular No. A-94. This rate represents the
average rate of return on private investment. In addition to using a
discount rate of 10 percent, it is useful to conduct a sensitivity analysis
using other discount rates as well (e.g., 4 percent, 7 percent). This is
discussed further in the next section. Estimates of costs in each of the
planning years are made in constant dollars, representing the general
purchasing power at the time of construction. The period of performance
should not exceed 30 years for the purpose of detailed feasibility analysis.
7.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
After the present worth of each remedial action alternative is
calculated, each cost should be evaluated for effects of variations in
assumptions through sensitivity analysis. A sensitivity analysis assesses
the effect that variations in specific assumptions associated with the
design, implementation, operation, discount rate, and effective life of an
alternative can have on the estimated cost of the alternative. These
assumptions depend on the accuracy of the data developed during the remedial
investigation and on predictions of the future behavior of the remedial
technology and are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty. The
sensitivity of costs to these uncertainties can be observed by varying these
assumptions and noting the effects on estimated costs. Sensitivity analysis
can also be used to optimize the design of a remedial action alternative,
particularly when design parameters are interdependent (e.g., treatment
plant capacity for contaminated ground water and the length of the period of
performance).
7-8
-------
Sensitivity analysis is especially concerned with factors that can
significantly change overall costs with only small changes in the values of
the factors. Other factors chosen for analysis should be those for which
the value is most uncertain. The results of the analysis can be used to
identify "worst case" scenarios and to revise estimates of contingency or
reserve funds.
The following factors are primary candidates for consideration in con-
ducting sensitivity analysis:
• Effective life of remedial action (replacement)
• Operation and maintenance costs
• Duration of cleanup (period of performance)
• Extent of cleanup, given uncertainty about site conditions
• Other design parameters
• Discount rate.
The choice of a discount rate could be critical in options that include
high operation and maintenance costs over extended periods. The user is
encouraged to identify those situations when the choice of a 4 percent or
7 percent discount rate would produce a different low cost option. In those
situations, sensitivity analyses about differing discount rates should be
included in the presentation of alternatives.
The "time value" of money can substantially affect the present worth
ranking of competing alternatives, particularly where there is wide
disparity between capital and operation and maintenance costs among the
alternatives. The sensitivity of the present worth of competing alterna-
tives to the assumed discount rate is best illustrated by an example
comparison. Table 7-1 presents an analysis of three ground-water protection/
cleanup alternatives at applied discount rates of 4, 7, and 10 percent over
30-year system lives. Application of the lowest discount rate tends to
favor (to result in lowest present worth) alternatives having relatively low
operation and maintenance costs and high capital costs, while application of
the highest discount rate tends to favor alternatives having relatively low
capital costs and high operation and maintenance costs. . This trend is shown
in the ranking of costs of the three alternatives in Table 7—1; it is
possible that a given alternative may have the highest, lowest, or an
intermediate present worth, depending on the discount rate being considered.
Additional guidance is under development which contains worksheets
enabling the user to manipulate key parameters affecting remedial action
cost and to measure the resulting effect. The manual also discusses factors
the user may choose to analyze, and provides an example showing completed
worksheets for a hypothetical alternative.
7-9
-------
TABLE 7-1. PRESENT WORTH ANALYSTS OF THREE ALTERNATIVES AT THREE DISCOUNT RATES
Alternative
Descript ion
Capital
OS. M
Cost Estimates ($1,000)
Annual
Capital O&M
Present Worth at
Discount Rate ($1,000)
4%
ior
I
I—•
o
Install slurry cut-off
wall and ground-water
monitoring system
Install ground-water
pumping and treatment
system and ground-water
monitoring system
Install ground-water
pumping system and
ground-water monitoring
system
Inspect surface 10,000 200
conditions and
monitor ground water
Provide energy, labor, 5,000 600
and materials to afford
pumping and treatment
and monitor ground water
Provide energy, labor, 1,000 1,000
and materials to afford
pumping, haul water to
off-site treatment
facility, and monitor
ground water
13,458 12,482 11,885
15,375 12,445 10,656
18,292 13,409 10,427
Ranking
C-B-A
A-B-C
A-B-C B-A-C C-B-A
Present worth of annuity factor for 30 years = 17.292
Present worth of annuity factor for 30 years = 12.409
Present worth of annuity factor for 30 years = 9.427
In order of lowest to highest cost.
-------
7.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES COST ANALYSIS
Data developed in the cost estimation and present worth analysis stages
are used in a summary table to describe the alternatives (see chapter 8).
Decisionmakers responsible for cost-effectiveness determinations must have a
common basis for comparing costs when evaluating various remedial action
alternatives. Therefore, three critical cost elements should be developed
and assembled for input into the cost-effectiveness analysis: (1) total
capital cost, (2) present worth costs, and (3) the cash flow over the life
of the remedial action alternative.
The cash flow of a remedial action alternative presents a tally of the
anticipated costs for each year of the remedial action alternative. The
presentation of costs in this manner allows decisionmakers to identify and
assess future capital and operation and maintenance outlays, which are
important in planning budgets.
It should be noted that the presentation of the costs for each
alternative should include all costs associated with implementation of the
alternative. Costs common to all alternatives must be included with each
alternative so that the total estimated cost for each is readily apparent.
7-11
-------
-------
CHAPTER 8
SUMMARIZE ALTERNATIVES
8.1 OVERVIEW
This chapter is a guide to summarizing the detailed technology, public
health, environment, and cost evaluations discussed in chapters 3 through 7.
The summary of alternatives is a key step in comparing the alternatives so
the decisionmaker can select the cost-effective remedy in accordance with
CERCLA and the NCP.
The diversity of site characteristics, the mass of information
collected, and the range of factors that must be considered makes evaluating
remedial alternatives and selecting one for implementation difficult. In
this context, decisionmaking cannot be carried out by applying a
deterministic decision rule. The decisionmaker, armed with the necessary
information, must instead consider relevant and applicable standards,
appropriate criteria or guidance, health and environmental concerns,
technological reliability, cost, and other appropriate factors associated
with each alternative. These factors must be evaluated and specific circum-
stances at a site must be taken into account during their evaluation.
8.2 CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Chapter 4 discusses the categories of alternatives that must be
examined under the "CERCLA compliance with other laws policy." The summary
of alternatives must present these to the decisionmaker as well.
When the specific conditions preclude development of alternatives in
one of the required categories, the feasibility study must document the
reasons for that decision. Occasionally, an alternative may fall into more
than one category.
The decisionmaker will consider all of the alternatives arrayed in the
summary, and will give primary consideration to the remedies that attain or
exceed applicable or relevant Federal public health and environmental
standards. The decisionmaker would then select a remedy that attains or
exceeds applicable standards unless one of the specific circumstances
discussed below is determined to exist by the decisionmaker. Where relevant
or applicable standards are not available or criteria or advisories are not
8-1
-------
used, the user will be directed by EPA headquarters to achieve a specific
risk level or range of risk levels as described in chapter 5.
The decisionmaker may consider, and modify if necessary, criteria that
were not developed for the specific application under consideration. For
example, Federal Water Quality Criteria are based on consumption of 2 liters
of water and 6.5 grams of fish per day. If these criteria are used for
ground-water remedies, an adjustment should be made to consider consumption
of water only. The decisionmaker would document cases where he/she does not
use or adjust relevant standards or criteria.
If disposal of hazardous substances off-site is part of the selected
response, the decisionmaker also would ensure that the off-site facility
selected is acceptable under the policy in force at the time. Appendix B
describes current EPA policy.
The decisionmaker may select a remedial action that includes both
source control and management of migration response actions consistent with
this policy.
The decisionmaker may select an on-site alternative that does not
attain applicable or relevant standards in one of the following specific
circumstances, recognizing that a consideration in making this determination
is the extent to which the standard was intended to apply to the specific
circumstances present at the site :
1. The selected alternative is not the final remedy and will become
part of a more comprehensive remedy;
2. All of the alternatives which meet applicable or relevant standards
fall into one or more of the following categories:
(i) Fund balancing - for Fund financed actions only; exercise
the Fund balancing provisions of CERCLA section 104(c)(4);
(ii) Technical impracticality - it is technically impractical
from an engineering perspective to achieve the standard at
the specific site in question;
(iii) Unacceptable environmental impacts - all alternatives that
attain or exceed standards would cause unacceptable damage
to the environment; or,
In determining whether a particular standard is applicable or relevant, the
decisionmaker should refer to the list of "Applicable or Relevant Require-
ments" in the CERCLA compliance policy. For example, RCRA did not "contem-
plate" the regulation of indiscriminant disposal of waste over 210 miles of
roadway, or the contamination of a river bed with hazardous waste. In such
situations, RCRA regulations would not be applicable per se, but on a case-
by-case basis, part of the regulation may be relevant.
8-2
-------
3. Where the remedy is to be carried out pursuant to CERCLA section
106; the Hazardous Response Trust Fund is unavailable; there is a
strong public interest in expedited cleanup; and the litigation
probably would not result in the desired remedy.
The Agency anticipates that most CERCLA remedial actions will attain or
exceed applicable or relevant public health or environmental standards.
However, where the specific circumstances discussed above preclude the
selection of a remedy that attains standards, the decisionmaker would select
the alternative that most closely approaches the level of protection pro-
vided by the applicable or relevant standard, considering the reasons for
not meeting that standard.
8.2.1 Other Federal Environmental Standards, Guidance, or Advisories
EPA will encourage other Federal agencies to use their statutory
authorities in connection with response actions. In developing remedial
alternatives, the EPA should take these standards, guidance, or advisories
into consideration. If an alternative is selected after consideration of
these standards, guidance, or advisories but does not achieve them, the
decision documents would state the reasons for the decision.
8.2.2 State Environmental Standards, Guidance, or Advisories
If a State desires the selection of a remedial action incorporating
State standards more stringent than Federal standards, the decisionmaker may
select that remedy. The State generally would be expected to pay additional
costs incurred in achieving the more stringent standards, but the EPA
decision official may make exceptions to this policy in appropriate
circumstances.
8.3 ORGANIZE AND PRESENT INFORMATION
Pertinent information on costs, health risks, environmental effects,
reliability, and other factors should be presented for each remedial alter-
native, including the no-action alternative, so that the key differences
among alternatives are evident. Remedial alternatives that attain or exceed
the requirements of applicable environmental regulations should be iden-
tified.
A narrative summary describing such factors as cost, technology,
reliability, adverse impacts, and other factors should be used to compare
all on-site alternatives to each other and to off-site disposal alterna-
tives .
8-3
-------
If there are not applicable or relevent Federal public health or
environmental standards, the evaluation should be based on the degree to
which each alternative mitigates and minimizes threats to and provides
adequate protection of public health, welfare, and the environment, con-
sidering cost, technology, adverse impacts, and the reliability of the
alternative.
The following information, at a minimum, must be provided for each
remedial alternative:
• Present worth of total costs: The net present value of capital and
operating and maintenance costs must be presented.
• Health information: For the no action alternative, EPA prefers a
quantitative statement including an estimated range of maximum
individual risks. For source control options, a quantitative risk
assessment is not required. For management of migration measures, a
quantitative risk assessment, including an estimated range of
maximum individual risks, is required.
• Environmental effects: To simplify the evaluation, only the most
important.effects should be summarized. Reference can be made to
supplemental information in a separate table, if necessary.
• Technical aspects of the alternative: This information may strongly
influence the selection of a remedial alternative, and it is
important to describe carefully the technical advantages and
disadvantages of alternatives. Such information generally is based
on the professional opinion of engineers familiar with the site and
with the technologies comprising the alternatives.
• Information on the extent to which alternatives meet the technical
requirements and environmental standards of appropriate environ-
mental regulations: This information should be arrayed so that
differences between the alternatives, in terms of how they satisfy
such standards, are readily apparent. The kinds of standards
applicable at the site may include (1) RCRA design and operating
standards, (2) drinking water standards, and (3) environmental
discharge standards.
• Information on community effects: The types of information that
should be provided include (1) the extent to which implementing an
alternative would disrupt the community (e.g., traffic, temporary
health risks, and relocation) and (2) the likely public reaction.
• Information on remedies involving removal of materials for off-site
disposal: This information should document compliance with EPA
policy on selecting off-site EPA approved facilities for disposal of
materials from CERCLA sites.
8-4
-------
• Other factors: This category of information would include institu-
tional factors that may inhibit implementing a remedial alternative
and other important site-specific factors.
Tables 8-1 through 8-3 are examples showing how to summarize the most
important information to consider in the selection of a remedy. This
summary, supported by the RI/FS studies, provides the body of information
the decisionmaker must use to select a cost-effective remedy. Table 8-1
lists hypothetical alternatives for source control measures at the Lehigh
Electric site, and Table 8-2, for management of migration measures at the
Reilly Tar site. Table 8-3 presents a hypothetical case in which both
source control and management of migration measures were developed for
analysis. In some cases, both source control measures and management of
migration measures may be combined to form one alternative, and are
presented in the table as a combined alternative. Each table describes the
alternatives in terms of effectiveness, cost, and other features.
When on-site alternatives are being considered, the feasibility study
will generally recommend the alternative which attains or exceeds applicable
or relevant Federal public health or environmental standards except when
five specific circumstances are determined to exist at the site, as required
by EPA's policy on compliance with other environmental laws (described in
section 8.2). In addition, appropriate Federal public health, and environ-
mental criteria, advisories, and guidance, and State standards can be used
in recommending the alternative.
The summary of alternatives should highlight important differences
among alternatives, reducing to manageable proportions the information to be
reviewed by the decisionmaker. The summary's precision should be consistent
with the extent of knowledge about the problem and the expected results of
remedies.
8-5
-------
TABLE 8-1. SOURCE CONTROL ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY FOR LEHIGH ELECTRIC
co
Alternative
1.
2-3.
4-6.
7.
No action
Soil removal to
10 ppm, site
management or
capping
Soil removal to
50 ppm, site
management ,
capping, or
encapsulation
Soil removal to
50 ppm with
additional
excavation
Cost ($1,000)
Present
Capital Worth
10
7,500 7,500
7,600 7,600
6,100 6,100
6,500 6,500
6,400 6,400
Public Health
Concerns
PCB exposure: Ingestlon,
Inhalation, and dermal
exposure to PCBs above
50 ppm.
Assume PCBs are Immobil-
ized (no risk).
Assume PCBs are Immobil-
ized (no risk).
Assume PCBs are Immobil-
ized (no risk).
Community
Environmental Technical Response
Concerns Concerns Concerns Other
Minimal protection — Unacceptable. Landfill PCBs
for migration to (Standards are
aquifer and river. 50 ppm).
No contamination
documented to date.
Minimal — Acceptable.
potential for migration.
Minimal
potential for migration. — Unacceptable.
Minimal — Negotiated. Agreement.
potential for migration.
Option selected.
-------
TABLE 8-2. MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY FOR REILLY TAR, FIRST OPERABLE UNIT
00
Cost (SI, 000)
Present7 Public Health
Alternative Capital Worth Concerns
1.
2.
3.
No action
Connection to 250
Hlnneapoll a
water aysten
Drill deeper 1,870
underlying
formations
Unacceptable exposure to
PAH during gumer or
during
8,102 Reduces
threat
fires.
public health
to less than
Environmental
Concerns
Continued migration
of contaminated
ground water.
Does not control
ground water.
Technical
Concerns
—
Relies on staple
technology.
10 " (migration).
2,916 Reduces
10"K.
public health
Does not control
water migration.
Depletes Halted
water resources In
deeper aquifer.
Relies on proven
no ogy
Community
Response
Concerns
High
resistance*
Other
Acceptable. Has significantly
O&M and
cost.
Acceptable. Has second
present
highest
higher
worth
4. Aqulfer t reatment
A. Ozone 374 1,618
459 2,109
709 2,434
B. Granular
activated
carbon
(GAC)
633
2,150
633 2.263
Removes taste and odor,
but results In 10~ to
10 risk (2,000 ng/L
for noncarclnogenlc PAH) .
risk (1,000 ng/L for
noncarc1nogenlc PAH)a
Results In 10 or less
risk (280 ng/L for
noncarc1nogenlc PAH)a.
Removes taste and odor
but results In 10~ to
10~* risk (2,000 ng/L
for noncarclnogenlc
PAH)a.
Results In 10~5 to 10~6
risk (1,000 ng/L for
noncarclnogenlc PAH)a.
Blocks migration and
allows additional
wells to be opened*
Blocks migration and
allows additional
wells to be opened.
Not used on wide scale. Acceptable.
Less responsive than
granular activated
carbon to slug loading.
Would be expensive to
retrofit If treatment
goals change. Certainty
that target risk levels
In "Public Health Concerns"
column will not be
consistently
met is low due to
operational Inflexibility.
Considered best available Acceptable.
technology. Proven over
a wide range of operating
conditions. Responds well
to slug loading.
Likely to meet risk target
in "Public Health Concerns"
column, consistently.
Present worth is less
than for GAC at low
treatment level, but
greater at recommended
(lowest risk) level.
633 24,058
Results In 10 or less
risk (280 ng/L for
noncarclnogenic PAH)*.
Approximate organoleptlc threshold.
Present worth Is less
at recommended
t reatment leve1•
-------
TABLE 8-3. SOURCE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY FOR HARD TIMES WASTE SITE
- - -
Cost ($1,000)
Present ~ Public Health
Alternative Capital Worth Concerns
I . Source Control
1. No action 10 — Unacceptable exposure to
TCE through continued
Could potentially cause
(direct contact
with humans, unsecured
areas).
subsurface and surface water.
removal of drums Public risk reduced
Community
Environmental Technical Response
Concerns Concerns Concerns Other
Continued migration — Unacceptable.
to the ground water
Could threaten
endangered aquat Ic
species.
air and surface technology. to RCRA permitted
water. Ground- facility.
,
fence surface waste and con- continues but effectiveness
tamlnated areas secured), majority of monitoring
' source (above required.
I ground) Is
Oo controlled.
Impact to endangered
aquatic species Is
reduced.
3. Surface and sub- 650 9,350 Assume no direct contact Reduces release Proven Moderately Removal of waste
surface removal, or Ingest Ion (no risk). to air and surface technology. acceptable. to RCRA-permlttcd
security fence, water. Ground- facility. High
alternative water water release con- 0 & M costs
supply tinues but majority associated with
of source (above alternative water
ground) Is controlled. supply. Effective-
Impact to endangered ness must be
aquatic species is monitored.
reduced.
4. Surface removal, 2,500 3,000 Assume no direct contact Eliminates release Proven Moderately Removal of waste to a
capping and or ingest Ion (no risk). to air and technology. acceptable. RCRA permitted
grading, Controls source of surface water. facility. The
temporary ground-water release. Impact on endangered Blurry wall must
alternative aquatic species contain a large
water supply eliminated. area because of
security the current
fence, 360° ground-water plume
slurry wall boundaries.
Effectiveness must
be monitored.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 8-3. (continued)
00
I
Cost (51,000)
Present
Alternative Capital Worth
1 I . Management of
mlgrat ion
1. No action 10
2. Pumping con- 1,750 2,120
laminated
ground water,
pret reat ing
and discharging
to local POTW,
capping and
grading
3. Pumping 1 ,830 2,420
contaminated
ground water,
pret reat Ing and
discttarg ing to
local surface
water body, cap-
ping and grading
4. In situ 1,950 3,850
biological and
chemical treat-
ment of contami-
nated soils and
ground water.
capping and
grading.
temporary
alternative water
supply
Public Health
Concerns
Unacceptable exposure to
TCE through continued
air, and ground water.
Could potentially cause
(direct contact
with humans, unsecured
areas).
Assume no direct ..contact
(leas than 10 , to
10 cancer rink) .
to less than 10
Results In 10~* to 10~5
cancer risk.
Community
Environmental Technical Response
Concerns Concerns Concerns
Continued migration — Unacceptable.
to the ground water
and surface water.
Could threaten
species.
Controls existing Proven Acceptable
contaminant plume technology. negotiated
In ground water. agreement.
water release technology. acceptable.
through capping
and grading
col lee ted ground
water .
Treats contamln- Difficult Unacceptable.
ated soils and to design
ground water. May delivery
be concern over system and
introducing addi- to monitor
tlonal chemicals effect Iveness
and organisms to in situ
the environment treatment-
through in situ
treatment
methodologies.
Mua
mi
d
ra<
4
r
SI
w
m-
o
NPD!
ri
bi
Si
I
In i
ti
fi
M.
c«
ri
Must determine and
meet local POTW
discharge require-
ments and Federal
403 pretreatment
regulatIons.
Should be combined
with source control
asures 1-2, 1.3,
or 1.4.
NPDES Permit may be
equired. Should
be combined with
source control
measures 1.2,
1.3, or 1.4.
situ treatment
technology not
fully developed.
May have to
contend with UlC
equirements.
-------
-------
CHAPTER 9
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FORMAT
This chapter presents and discusses the recommended format for CERCLA
feasibility study reports. This consistent format ensures that all major
issues are addressed, makes it possible to compare feasibility studies for
different sites, and ensures that decisions are adequately documented. The
result will be more rapid and efficient selection and implementation of the
most cost-effective remedies. Table 9-1 shows the recommended format, with
its numbering system, as it would appear in the report.
9.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The executive summary is a brief overview of the study and the analyses
underlying the recommended remedial action. Information about the site and
the feasibility analysis is summarized so that the reader can review the
findings in a logical order.
The major topics addressed in the executive summary are (1) the purpose
of a feasibility study; (2) the site, its background, and its problems;
(3) the promising remedial action alternatives; and (4) the recommended
remedial action and its advantages over other alternatives.
Discussions under each of these headings briefly convey important
characteristics, criteria, and findings. Tables and figures are used where
possible to summarize information clearly and concisely. The Executive
Summary should be 5 to 10 pages long with at most one or two tables or
figures.
9.2 INTRODUCTION
As the introduction to the report, chapter 1 briefly characterizes the
site in terms relevant to the analysis of remedial action strategies. The
introduction has three main topics: (1) site background information, (2)
the nature and extent of contamination problems at the site, and (3) reme-
dial objectives.
9-1
-------
TABLE 9-1. FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FORMAT
Executive Summmary
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Site background information
1.2 Nature and extent of problems
1.3 Objectives of remedial action
2.0 Screening of Remedial Action Technologies
2.1 Technical criteria
2.2 Remedial action alternatives developed
2.3 Environmental and public health criteria
2.4 Other screening criteria
2.5 Cost criteria
3.0 Remedial Action Alternatives
3.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
3.2 Alternative 2
3.N Alternative N
4.0 Analysis of Remedial Action Alternatives
4.1 Noncost criteria analysis
4.1.1 Technical feasibility
4.1.2 Environmental evaluation
4.1.3 Institutional requirements
4.1.4 Public health evaluation
4.2 Cost analysis
5.0 Summary of Alternatives
6.0 Recommended Remedial Action (optional)
7.0 Responsiveness Summary (in final version only)
References
Appendices
9-2
-------
9.2.1 Site Background Information
The site background information discussion describes the site in terms
of past and present activities, concentrating on the physical, biological,
and socioeconomic factors that affect site conditions. Specific topics may
include the following:
• Facility location, size, existing structures
• The time period of waste-related activities
• Historical descriptions of:
- Facility type
- Activities and operations
- Types of wastes
- Condition of wastes (originally and at present)
- Incidents that occurred (fire, explosion, ground-water
contamination, etc.)
- Site investigations, response actions, and enforcement activities
• Physiography
• Hydrogeology
• Other items
- Community perception
- Planned use of site
- Conflicting or missing information
- Site map showing location, size, water supplies, sensitive
environmental areas, and nearby populations.
All discussions should be pertinent to the use of the facility for managing
hazardous wastes.
9.2.2 Nature and Extent of Problems
The nature and extent of the problems at the site should be described
in a way that establishes a framework for determining remedial objectives
and defines criteria for selecting remedial action alternatives. This
section of the introduction focuses on existing and potential on-site and
off-site health and environmental effects. It should include the following:
• Type, physical state, and quantity of wastes or hazardous substances
on the site
• Special waste considerations (e.g., explosive or radioactive
materials)
9-3
-------
• Present condition of materials and structures (including drums,
tanks, landfills, etc.)
• Changes in site conditions (e.g., filling in a waste pit or lagoon,
applying cover material to buried or partly buried drums)
• Effects of contaminants from the site (as indicated by monitoring
and geotechnical studies):
- Types of contaminant releases (e.g., leachate, runoff)
- Affected media, movements of contaminants
- Resources, population, or environments threatened by contaminant
movement
- Human exposure
• Near-future effects of site conditions and contaminant migration
• Actions previously taken to mitigate problems and the results of
these actions.
9.2.3 Objectives of Remedial Action
The final section of the introduction identifies the objectives of
remedial actions at the site. Objectives should be identified in terms of
general goals (e.g., minimize off-site contaminant migration) as well as
specific goals (e.g., prevent waste from coming into contact with ground
water, raise site above 100-year floodplain, etc.). This section should
also describe or tabulate environmental criteria and standards that form the
basis for remedial actions.
9.3 SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES
Chapter 2 of the report summarizes the screening process used to iden-
tify the most appropriate remedial action alternatives to undergo detailed
analysis. Technical discussions should address the technologies initially
considered and identify the most promising technologies, the methods used to
develop remedial action alternatives from those technologies, and the alter-
natives developed. It should also discuss the problems associated with
applicable technologies. The chapter should also discuss the following four
categories of screening criteria:
• Environmental and public health
• Other site-related considerations such as public welfare, site
access, etc.
• Cost.
9-4
-------
The discussion should explain the reasons for eliminating certain alterna-
tives.
The final section of the chapter identifies the most promising alterna-
tives. Detailed descriptions and preliminary conceptual designs for these
alternatives should be placed in chapter 3.
9.4 REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Chapter 3 of the report summarizes the remedial action alternatives
developed from the applicable technologies identified in the initial
screening.
The description details the cost and noncost features of each remedial
action alternative. Specific elements in these discussions should include
the following:
• The intent of the remedial alternative, such as source control or
mitigation of contaminant migration or effects of migration, etc.
• Key features of the alternative
- Description of the technologies making up the alternative
• Control, storage, treatment, and/or disposal requirements
• Phasing of work, if necessary
• Special engineering, safety, environmental, public health, public
welfare, or other considerations that affect the feasibility of each
alternative
• Operation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements (short and long
term)
• Aspects of the site problem that the alternative will or will
not control.
If the alternative involves a series of separate activities, each activity
should be identified and briefly described. It should also be noted whether
the particular strategy provides a single-medium or multimedia solution,
where such a solution is applicable. A site layout diagram, process flow
diagram, and the like should be included to illustrate each alternative.
A summary of the remedial action alternatives may be included in matrix
form. Such a summary would include a list of the strategies, key features
of each concept, the problems to be controlled, and the expected result of
each alternative.
9-5
-------
9.5 ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Chapter 4 of the feasibility study report presents detailed analyses of
the remedial action alternatives. The majority of the analyses and sup-
porting data will be presented in Appendices to the FS report. This chapter
presents an overview of these analyses and is divided into two major sec-
tions: noncost criteria analyses and cost analysis.
9.5.1 Noncost Criteria Analysis
The noncost criteria section addresses considerations of technical
feasibility, environmental protection, public health, and institutional
issues. Each of these analyses is presented in a separate subsection.
For each noncost criteria category, the report summarizes the analysis
performed, identifying and briefly discussing the criteria and methods used.
Where possible, the results of the specific analysis for each of the alter-
natives should be summarized using tables and figures to consolidate com-
parative information. The technical discussion should concentrate on the
feasibility and implementability of each alternative. The environmental
discussion should assess each alternative's positive and negative impacts on
the environment. The institutional discussion should discuss regulatory and
community relations issues for each alternative, and their impacts on the
choice of an alternative.
The final section of this chapter reviews the public health aspects of
each remedial alternative, examining the relevant public health goals and
public health aspects of each remedial alternative, including relevant and
applicable standards, criteria, advisories, and guidance considered, and an
explanation of adjustments made to standards, criteria, etc. Alternatives
failing to meet these goals are noted, with brief explanations of these
failures and of the anticipated effects of the level of control in question.
At a minimum, the noncost analysis of each alternative should include a
discussion of the subject areas listed in section 8.3.
9.5.2 Cost Analysis
The cost analysis section should summarize the estimated costs of each
alternative, review the main cost items, and discuss important considera-
tions in the cost analysis. Cost analysis topics should include the
following:
Costing methodology
Capital costs
Operation and maintenance costs
Present worth analysis
Phasing of the work and its impact on cost (if required)
9-6
-------
• Distribution of costs over time (stream of costs)
• Results of the sensitivity analyses.
For ease of presentation and to permit direct comparison of the various
alternatives, much of the cost data should be presented in tables and
figures.
9.6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Chapter 5 of the feasibility study report summarizes the remedial
alternatives and presents the results of the analysis using appropriate
summary tables and figures. The alternatives are compared, with clear
statements of their advantages and disadvantages. At the end of this
comparative analysis, the recommended alternative is identified, and the
reasons for the selection are given.
9.7 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTION
Chapter 6 of the report, a detailed description of the recommended
remedial action, is prepared to meet certain specific regional requirements.
This is based on regional discretion. In some cases, the description of the
recommended action will not be prepared at this stage, but after approval of
the Record of Decision (ROD). Generally, for enforcement-lead sites, the
Regional Administrator may elect not to include a recommended alternative at
this stage.
The recommended remedial action chapter would include the following:
• A review of what the remedial action will and will not accomplish
• Special engineering considerations and special studies needed during
final design
• Operation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements
• Off-site disposal needs and transportation plans
• Temporary storage requirements
• Appropriate treatment and disposal technologies
• Brief descriptions of the environmental and public health problems
that may be encountered during implementation
• Means of mitigating the associated environmental and public health
problems (and their costs).
9-7
-------
9.8 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The responsiveness summary is included only in the final version of a
feasibility study report, after public comment on the study. This chapter
summarizes the public comment on the draft feasibility study report, includ-
ing views expressed by potentially responsible parties, whether or not
labelled as "comments," and actions taken regarding these comments.
9.9 REFERENCES
The references section contains the complete bibliographic citation for
each information source used and cited in the main text of the report.
References to sources cited in an appendix should appear in a separate list
with that appendix.
9.10 APPENDICES
The text of the feasibility study report summarizes the site infor-
mation evaluated and the analysis conducted in selecting the most promising
remedial action alternative. So that this summary presents the major fea-
tures of the analysis and decision process clearly and logically, detailed
discussions, diagrams, and supporting analyses may be presented as appen-
dices.
A feasibility study report may include the following appendices:
• Appendix A: Supporting Documentation for the Screening Process
• Appendix B: Supporting Documentation for Cost Analysis of Best
Alternatives
• Appendix C: Technical Feasibility Analysis
• Appendix D: Public Health Evaluation
• Appendix E: Environmental Evaluation
• Appendix F: Exposure Analysis
• Appendix G: Institutional Analysis.
Depending on the features and problems of a site, and the complexity of the
accompanying analysis, some of these appendices may be unnecessary, or
additional appendices may be needed.
9-8
-------
GLOSSARY
AASHTO - American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
Acceptable engineering practices - technologies or practices which are
technically sound, reliable, and applicable with respect to a
particular site problem.
ACL - Alternative Concentration Limit
ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials.
Budget estimates - estimates of capital operation and maintenance or service
costs provided by a vendor.
CAA - Clean Air Act.
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980. Also known as Superfund.
Cleanup - the elimination, reduction, or containment of pollutants from a
site by a selected remedial action.
Community impacts - any change in the normal way of life, directly or
indirectly attributable to the selected remedial action, including
temporary or permanent relocation, initiation of health monitoring
programs, formation of citizens' groups to review remedial alter-
natives, etc.
CRP - Community Relations Plan.
CWA - Clean Water Act.
Durability - the projected length of time that a designed level of
effectiveness can be maintained. It is also measured in terms of the
operation and maintenance requirements (parameter of reliability).
EDD - Enforcement Decision Document; a public document that is similar in
purpose to a ROD. It documents the selection of a remedy and is used
in settlement or litigation with potential responsible parties.
Environmental carrying capacity - the alternate uses a site is capable of
supporting, especially after remedial actions.
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency.
1
-------
General response action - a response action category consisting of groupings
of related response technologies that may be used for a specific site
problem (e.g., surface water controls, air pollution controls).
HHS - Department of Health and Human Services.
HWM - hazardous waste management.
Implementability - a measure of successful prior installation of a remedial
technology either on similar sites or on a research and development
basis. Includes well understood installation and operational practices
requiring minimal monitoring.
Institutional factors - analytical factors associated with Federal, State,
and local regulations, guidance, and advisories concerning public
health and welfare, environmental considerations, community relations,
and other social, political, and economic concerns.
Isolation - a situation in which the transport of pollutants from a site to
the surrounding environment has been stopped or slowed by the selected
remedial action, but no pollutants have actually been removed.
MCL - Maximum Concentration Limit, established under to Safe Drinking Water
Act.
MPRSA - Marine Protection Resource and Sanctuaries Act.
NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
NCP - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan.
NDD - Negotiated Decision Document; a confidential enforcement document
containing a discussion of alternatives identified in the draft RI/FS,
indicates preferred alternatives; serves as basis for negotiation with
potential responsible parties.
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act.
NESHAPs - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
NIOSH - National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
NOEL (No-Observed Effect Level) - the maximum experimental dose of a
substance at which no toxic effect was observed.
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
NSPS - New Source Performance Standards.
O&M - operation and maintenance.
OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
-------
Operable unit - a discrete part of a remedial action that can function inde-
pendently as a unit and contributes to preventing or minimizing a
release or threat of release.
Physiography - general description of a site; for example geographic
position, vegetative cover, and topography.
Present worth - a summary of costs to be incurred over a period of time
discounted to the present.
PSD - Prevention of Significant Deterioration (air permit).
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Relevant or applicable standards - established Federal or State procedural
requirements or limit values (such as MCLs) pertaining specifically to
chemicals, environmental impacts, or technology operations conducted or
anticipated at a site.
Reliability - a measure of the effectiveness and durability of a technology.
Remedial Action Alternative - a remedial technology or a combination of
remedial action technologies which will prevent or mitigate site-
specific contamination problems.
Remedial Action Technology ("Technology") - a general category encompassing
a number of remedial action technology options that address a similar
problem (e.g., capping, containment barriers, chemical treatment).
Remedial Action Technology Option ("Technology Option") - a specific
process, system, or action that may be used to cleanup or mitigate
contaminant problems (e.g., slurry wall, clay cap, activated sludge
treatment).
REMFIT contractor - Remedial Planning and Field Investigation Teams contract
to the U.S. EPA.
Risk Level - Cancer risk level provides an estimate of the additional
incidence of cancer that may be expected in a population exposed to a
given contaminant. A risk of 10~ , for example, indicates a probabili-
ty of one additionnal case of cancer for every 100,000 people exposed.
A risk of 10 indicates one additional case of cancer for every one
million people exposed. A risk of 10 would be one case in 10 million
people exposed.
RMCL - Recommended Maximum Concentration Limit, developed under Safe
Drinking Water Act.
ROD - Record of Decision, documents selection of cost-effective
Fund-financed remedy.
RPM - Remedial Project Manager.
-------
S&E Manual - procedural manual entitled "Methodology for Screening and
Evaluation of Remedial Responses."
SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act.
Sensitivity analysis - a test of a procedure to determine the overall
changes that result from any small changes in one or more procedural
elements.
Significant adverse impact - a public health or environmental effect that
cannot be mitigated or ameliorated.
SIP - State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act.
Site - a landfill, surface impoundment, storage facility, or any other site
or facility of any kind, at which a hazardous substance is present as a
result of a release of such hazardous substance from a facility as
defined under CERCLA.
SNARL - Suggested No Adverse Response Level
Social costs - perceived negative impacts resulting from a remedial action,
including impacts manifested in psychological, sociological, political,
legal, and organizational changes.
Technology status - the state-of-the-art, relative to application to
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, of remedial alternatives; described
as proven, widely used, or experimental.
TSD - treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
UCR (Unit Carcinogenic Risk) - probability that cancer will be produced for
each unit of dose.
UIC - Underground Injection Control Programs.
USDW - Underground source of drinking water.
Unit operation - the basic physical operations of chemical and civil
engineering that may be applied as remedial actions, for example
capping, groundwater pumping, biological treatment, containment
barrier; a technology.
User - any person involved with conducting a remedial action feasibility
study; the user of this document.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Alexander, Maurice M. et al. 1978. "The Ecological Impact of Bunker C
Oil on Fish and Wildlife in St. Lawrence River Marshes," Conference on
Assessment of Ecological Impacts of Oil Spills.
2. Alaska, State of: A) April 1982 booklet Oil Spill Status. B) "Alaskan
Civil Penalties Regulations for Oil Spills: The Record."
3. Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1976. Physical, Chemical and Biological
Treatment Techniques for Industrial Wastes. U.S. EPA Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs.
4. SNA State Water Laws: Environmental Reporter, (e.g., Alaska 706:0102,
p.74) "Definitions of damage, benefit".
5. Bonner, T. et al. 1980. In Print. Engineering Handbook for Hazardous
Waste Incineration. Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio.
EPA Contract No. 68-03-2550. U.S. EPA, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
6. Cairns, John. 1980, The Recovery Process in Damaged Ecosystems. Ann
Arbor. Science, Ann Arbor, MI.
7. Casarett, L.J. and J. Doull, Eds., 1975. Toxicology: The Basic Science
of Poisons. MacMillian Publishing Co., New York.
8. Cochran, R.S.; Yang, E. et al. 1983. In Print. Survey and Case Studies
of Remedial Actions at Hazardous Waste Sites. JRB Associates, McLean,
Virginia and the Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. EPA
Contract No. 68-01-3113 and Cooperative Agreement 809392. U.S. EPA Solid
and Hazardous Waste Research Division, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
9. Congressional Research Service. March 1980. "A Catalog of Resource
Losses from Surface Water, Groundwater & Atmospheric Contamination".
10. Cummings and Mattingly, EPA, July 1982. Assessment and Predictions of
Effects of Environmental Impacts on Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
11. Department of Commerce. August 1977. "Selected Annotated Bibliography
of Economic Values of Fish and Wildlife and their Habitats." Prepared
for Office of Water Research and Technology, Washington, D.C.
-------
12. Department of Ecology, Washington State. 1980. Guideline for Evaluating
Freshwater Resources Damages.
13. Department of Energy. November 1982. Draft EIS, "Remedial Actions at
the Former Vitro Rare Metals Plant Site Canonsburg, Washington County,
Pennsylvania". DOE/EIS-0096-D.
14. Department of Energy. February 1983. Draft EIS, "Remedial Actions at
the Former Vitro Chemical Company. Site South. Salt Lake, Salt Lake
County, Utah." DOE/EIS-009-D.
15. Department of Fishery, Washington State. 1979. Marine Water Quality
Compendium of Washington State.
16. Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of
Ecological Services. September 1980. Ecological Services Manual 101.
"Habitat as a basis for Environmental Aasessment."
17. Environmental Law Institute, Remedial Action Cost Compendium. In Print.
July 26, 1983.
18. Environmental Policy Institute. April 1976. "Oil Study of Pollution
Liability Insurance Laws."
19. Federal Register (40 CFR 300), Volume 47, No. 137, July 16, 1982.
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan.
20. Geraghty and Miller, Inc. and Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc. 1982.
"Injection Well Construction Practices and Technology." U.S. EPA, Office
of Drinking Water.
21. Halter, Faoth., Joel Thomas. 1981. Ecological Law Quarterly. 10:5.
"Recovery of Damages by States for Fish and Wildlife losses caused by
Pollution."
22. Heer, John and D.J. Hajerty. 1977. Environmental Assessment and
Statements. Van Nostrand Press.
23. ICF Inc. 1980. Chemical Substances Designation. U.S. EPA, Office of
Toxics Integration.
24. JRB Associates. 1982. Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites. U.S.
EPA, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory.
25. JRB Associates, Remedial Action Costing Procedures Manual. In Print.
August 26, 1983.
26. Kufs, C. et al. 1983. Procedures and Techniques for Controlling the
Migration of Leachate Plumes. JRB Associates, McLean, Virginia. EPA
Contract No. 68-01-3113. U.S. EPA Solid and Hazardous Waste Research
Division. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
-------
27. Kuhnhold, W.W. 1979. "Impact of Argo Merchant Oil Spill on Macrobenthic
and Pelagic Organisms." Proceedings from a Conference on Assessment of
Ecologic Impact of Oil Spills.
28. McGraw-Hill Information Systems Company, Dodge Guide, New York, New York,
1983.
29. Mitre, September 1981. "Working Paper."
30. Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA. 1980. Marine Resource Damage
Contingency Plan.
31. Pennsylvania Power and Light. January 1982. Laboratory and Aquatic
Survey Results. Stroudsburg Coal Tar Site. CCN 773097/001.
32. Radian Corporation. 1983. In Print. Methodology Manual - Evaluating
Cost Effectiveness of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites, Austin, Texas. DCN83-203-001-60-10. U.S. EPA Solid and Hazardous
Waste Research Division, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
33. Raniere, L. 1982. Field Guide for Scientific Support Activities
Associated wi'th Superfund Responses. Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
Battelle Memorial Institute - PNL 4093, 112 pp.
34. Ricklefs, R.E., 1973. Ecology. Chiron Press, Portland, OR.
35. Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Building Construction Cost Data 1983,
Kingston, Mass., 1983.
36. Sorensen, Phillip. 1979. "Economic Evaluation of Environmental Damage
Resulting from the Santa Barbara Oil Spill. (Preliminary Report)."
Proceedings from a Conference on the Draft Ecological Effects of Oil
Spills.
37. Spooner, P.A. et al. In Print. Slurry Trench Construction for Pollution
Migration Control. JRB Associates, McLean, Virginia. EPA Contract No.
68-01-3113. U.S. EPA Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division,.
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA
540/2-84-00.
38. State of Alaska. 1982. Alaska Oil Spill Status Booklet.
39. Tetratech, undated, Water Quality Aasessment: A Screening Procedure for
Toxic and Conventional Pollutants. Vols. I and II.
40. Toxic Waste Assessment Group, 1981. Alternatives to Land Disposal of
Hazardous Wastes. California Governors' Office of Appropriate
Technology.
-------
41. Tusa, W.K. and B.D. Gillen. Fred. Hart, Inc., 1982. Conference on
Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. "Assessment of H.W.
Mismanagement Cases." Washington State Department of Ecology.
42. U.S. EPA. In Press. Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook.
43. U.S. EPA. November 1980. Criteria and Standards Division, 1980. Water
Quality Criteria Documents; Availability. Federal Register.
44. U.S. EPA. January 1980. Damages and Threats Caused by Hazardous
Material Sites. EPA/430/9-80/004.
45. U.S. EPA. December 1981. Draft Guidance Manual for Superfund
Feasibility Studies.
46. U.S. EPA. Guide to the Disposal of Chemically Stabilized and
Solidified Waste. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
47. U.S. EPA. 1982. Handbook: Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites.
Technology Transfer. EPA 625/6-82-006, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, D.C.
48. U.S. EPA. 1981. Hazardous Waste Site Investigation Training Course
Guide.
49. U.S. EPA. Mulholland, R.J. 1978. New Sampling Theory for Measuring
Ecosystem Structure. Oklahoma State University, Electrical Engineering
Dept.
50. U.S. EPA. Nadeau Royal. 1979. Proceedings from the Conference
Assessment of Ecological Impacts of Oil Spills. "Nepco 140 Oil Spill".
51. U.S. EPA. October 1981. Protocol for bioassessment of HWS. Appendix A
"Biological tests for Bioassessment of HWS" EPA October 1981.
52. U.S. EPA. Office of Water Planning and Standards. July 1976. Quality
Criteria For Water. (The "Red Book").
53. U.S. EPA. October 1982. "Water Quality Standards Handbook" (Draft).
54. U.S. EPA. 1984a. Health Risk Assessment Guidelines for Chemical
Mixtures. Draft. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
55. U.S. EPA. 1984b. Guidance for the Preparation of Exposure Assessments.
Draft. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio.
56. U.S. EPA. 1984c. Revised Interim Guidelines for the Health Assessment
of Suspect Carcinogens. Draft. Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office, Cincinnati, Ohio.
8
-------
57. U.S. EPA. 1984d. Interim Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment.
Draft. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio.
58. U.S. EPA. 1984e. Guidance for the Health Assessment of Suspect
Developmental Toxicants. Draft. Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office, Cincinnati, Ohio.
59. U.S. EPA. 1984f. Health Risk Assessment Guidelines for Systemic
Toxicants. Draft. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
60. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat as a Basis for Environ-
mental Assessment, Ecological Service Manual 101.
61. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-94, revised 3/27/82,
p. 3.
62. Wagner, K. et al. 1983. In Print. Planning and Implementation of
Response Actions for Hazardous Waste Sites with Drums. JRB Associates,
McLean, Virginia. EPA Contract No. 68-03-3113. US EPA, Oil and
Hazardous Materials Spills Branch, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Edison, New Jersey.
63. Walsh, J. and D. Gillespie. 1983. In Print. Selecting Among
Alternative Remedial Actions for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. SCS
Engineers, Covington, Kentucky. EPA Contract No. 68-01-4885. US EPA,
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
64. Washington State, Dec. 1980. A) "Marine Resource Damage Contingency
Plan." B) June 1980. "Guideline for Evaluating Freshwater Resources
Damages."
65. Water Resources Council, 1980. 18 CFR 14. "Environmental Quality
Evaluation Procedures for Level C Water Resources Planning."
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
MODEL STATEMENT OF WORK
FOR CONDUCTING FEASIBILITY STUDIES
PURPOSE
The purpose of this feasibility study is to develop
and evaluate remedial alternatives for [specific site].
The Engineer will furnish the necessary personnel,
materials, and services necessary to prepare the remedial
action feasibility study, except as otherwise specified.
SCOPE
The feasibility study consists of eight tasks:
Task 8 - Description of Proposed Response
Task 9 - Preliminary Remedial Technologies
Task 10 - Development of Alternatives
Task 11 - Initial Screening of Alternatives
Task 12 - Evaluation of the Alternatives
Task 13 - Preliminary Report
Task 14 - Final Report
Task 15 - Additional Requirements.
A work plan that includes a detailed technical
approach, a budget, personnel requirements, and schedules
will be submitted for the proposed feasibility study.
TASK 8 - DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT SITUATION
Information on the site background, the nature and
extent of the problem, and previous response activities
presented in Task 1 of the remedial investigation may be
incorporated by reference. Any changes to the original
project scope described in the Task 1 description should
be discussed and justified based on results of the
remedial investigation.
Following this summary of the current situation, a
site-specific statement of purpose for the response, based
on the results of the remedial investigation, should be
presented. The statement of purpose should identify the
actual or potential exposure pathways that should be
addressed by remedial alternatives.
A-l
-------
TASK 9 - PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Based on the site-specific problems and statement of
purpose identified in Task 8, develop a master list of
potentially feasible technologies. These technologies
will include both on-site and off-site remedies, depending
on site problems. The master list will be screened based
on site conditions, waste characteristics, and technical
requirements, to eliminate or modify those technologies
that may prove extremely difficult to implement, will
require unreasonable time periods, or will rely on
insufficiently developed technology. [The results of this
task may be requested as a separate memorandum (Remedial
Options Negotiation Document) by the State or EPA.]
TASK 10 - DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
Based on the results of the remedial investigation and
consideration of preliminary remedial technologies
(Task 9), develop a limited number of alternatives for
source control or off-site remedial actions, or both, on
the basis of objectives established for the response.
a. Establishment of Remedial Response Objectives
Establish site-specific objectives for the
response. These objectives will be based on
public health and environmental concerns, the
description of the current situation (from
Task 1), information gathered during the remedial
investigation, section 300.68 of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), EPA's interim guidance,
and the requirements of any other applicable EPA,
Federal, and State environmental standards,
guidance, and advisories as defined under EPA's
CERCLA compliance policy. Objectives for source
control .measures should be developed to prevent
or significantly minimize migration of
contamination from the site. Objectives for
management of migration measures should prevent
or minimize impacts of contamination that has
migrated from the site. Preliminary cleanup
objectives will be developed in consultation with
EPA and the State.
b. Identification of Remedial Alternatives
Develop alternatives to incorporate remedial
technologies (from Task 9), response objectives,
A-2
-------
and other appropriate considerations into a
comprehensive, site-specific approach.
Alternatives developed should include the
following (as appropriate):
Alternatives for off-site treatment or
disposal, as appropriate
Alternatives which attain applicable
and/or relevant Federal public health
or environmental standards
Alternatives which exceed applicable
and/or relevant public health or
environmental standards
Alternatives which do not attain
applicable and/or relevant public
health or environmental standards but
will reduce the likelihood of present
or future threat from the hazardous
substances. This must include an
alternative which closely approaches
the level of protection provided by the
applicable or relevant standards
No action.
There may be overlap among the alternatives
developed. Further, alternatives outside of
these categories may also be developed, such as
non-cleanup alternative (e.g., alternative water
supply, relocation). The alternatives shall be
developed in close consultation with EPA and the
State. Document the rationale for excluding any
technologies identified in Task 9 in the
development of alternatives.
TASK 11 - INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives developed in Task 10 will be screened
by the Engineer to eliminate those that are clearly
infeasible or inappropriate, prior to undertaking detailed
evaluations of the remaining alternatives.
A-3
-------
Considerations to be Used in Initial Screening
Three broad considerations must be used as a basis for
the initial screening: cost, public health, and the
environment. More specifically, the following factors
must be considered:
1. Environmental Protection. Only those
alternatives that satisfy the response objectives
and contribute substantially to the protection of
public health, welfare, or the environment will
be considered further. Source control
alternatives will achieve adequate control of
source materials. Management of migration
alternatives will minimize or mitigate the threat
of harm to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
2. Environmental Effects. Alternatives posing
significant adverse environmental effects will be
excluded.
3. Technical Feasibility. Technologies that may
prove extremely difficult to implement, will not
achieve the remedial objectives in a reasonable
time period, or will rely upon unproven
technology should be modified or eliminated.
4. Cost. An alternative whose cost far exceeds that
of other alternatives will usually be eliminated
unless other significant benefits may also be
realized. Total costs will include the cost of
implementing the alternatives and the cost of
operation and maintenance.
The cost screening will be conducted only after
the environmental and public health screenings
have been performed.
TASK 12 - EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative
remedies that pass through the initial screening in
Task 11. Alternative evaluation will be preceded by
detailed development of the remaining alternatives.
a. Technical Analysis
The Technical Analysis will, as a minimum:
A-4
-------
1. Describe appropriate treatment, storage, and
disposal technologies.
2. Discuss how the alternative does (or does
not) comply with specific requirements of
other environmental programs. When an
alternative does not comply, discuss how the
alternative prevents or minimizes the
migration of wastes and public health or
environmental impacts and describe special
design needs that could be implemented to
achieve compliance.
3. Outline operation, maintenance, and
monitoring requirements of the remedy.
4. Identify and review potential off-site
facilities to ensure compliance with
applicable RCRA and other EPA environmental
program requirements, both current and
proposed. Potential disposal facilities
should be evaluated to determine whether
off-site management of site wastes could
result in a potential for a future release
from the disposal facility.
5. Identify temporary storage requirements,
off-site disposal needs, and transportation
plans.
6. Describe whether the alternative results in
permanent treatment or destruction of the
wastes, and, if not, the potential for
future release to the environment.
7. Outline safety requirements for remedial
implementation (including both on-site and
off-site health and safety considerations).
8. Describe how the alternative could be phased
into individual operable units. The
description should include a discussion of
how various operable units of the total
remedy could be implemented individually or
in groups, resulting in a significant
improvement to the environment or savings in
cost.
A-5
-------
9. Describe how the alternative could be
segmented into areas to allow implementation
in differing phases.
10. Describe special engineering requirements of
the remedy or site preparation
considerations.
b. Environmental Analysis
Perform an Environmental Assessment (EA) for each
alternative. The EA should focus on the site
problems and pathways of contamination actually
addressed by each alternative. The EA for each
alternative will include, at a minimum, an
evaluation of beneficial effects of the response,
adverse effects of the response, and an analysis"
of measures to mitigate adverse effects. The
no-action alternative will be fully evaluated to
describe the current site situation and
anticipated environmental conditions if no
actions are taken. The no-action alternative
will serve as the baseline for the analysis.
c. Public Health Analysis
Each alternative will be assessed in terms of the
extent to which it mitigates long-term exposure
to any residual contamination and protects public
health both during and after completion of the
remedial action. The assessment will describe
the levels and characterizations of contaminants
on-site, potential exposure routes, and
potentially affected population. The effect of
"no action" should be described in terms of
short-term effects (e.g., lagoon failure),
long-term exposure to hazardous substances, and
resulting public health impacts. Each remedial
alternative will be evaluated to determine the
level of exposure to contaminants and the
reduction over time. The relative reduction in
public health impacts for each alternative will
be compared to the no-action level. For
management of migration measures, the relative
reduction in impact will be determined by
comparing residual levels of each alternative
with existing criteria, standards, or guidelines
acceptable to EPA. For source control measures
or when criteria, standards, or guidelines are
A-6
-------
not available, the comparison should be based on
the relative effectiveness of technologies. The
no-action alternative will serve as the baseline
for the analysis.
d. Institutional Analysis
Each alternative will be evaluated based on
relevant institutional needs. Specifically,
regulatory requirements, permits, community
relations, and participating agency coordination
will be assessed.
e. Cost Analysis
Evaluate the cost of each feasible remedial
action alternative (and.for each phase or segment
of the alternative). The cost will be presented
as a present worth cost and will include the
total cost of implementing the alternative and
the annual operating and maintenance costs. Both
monetary costs and associated non-monetary costs
will be included. A distribution of costs over
time will be provided.
f. Evaluation of Cost-Effective Alternatives
Alternatives will be compared using technical,
environmental, and economic criteria. At a
minimum, the following areas will be used to
compare alternatives:
1. Present Worth of Total Costs. The net
present value of capital and operating and
maintenance costs also must be presented.
2. Health Information. For the no-action
alternative, EPA prefers a quantitative
statement including a range estimate of
maximum individual risks. Where
quantification is not possible, a
qualitative analysis may suffice. For
source control options, a quantitative risk
assessment is not required. For management
of migration measures, present a
quantitative risk assessment including a
range estimate of maximum individual risks.
A-7
-------
Environmental Effects. Only the most
important effects or impacts should be
summarized. Reference can be made to
supplemental information arrayed in a
separate table, if necessary.
Technical Aspects of the Remedial
Alternatives. The technical aspects of each
remedial alternative relative to the others
should be clearly delineated. Such
information generally will be based on the
professional opinion of the Engineer
regarding the site and the technologies
comprising the remedial alternative.
Information on the Extent to Which Remedial
Alternatives Meet the Technical Requirements
and Environmental Standards of Applicable
Environmental Regulations. This information
should be arrayed so that differences in how
remedial alternatives satisfy such standards
are readily apparent. The general types of
standards that may be applicable at the site
include:
a. RCRA design and operating standards; and
b. Drinking water standards and criteria.
Information on Community Effects. The type
of information that should be provided is
the extent to which implementation of a
remedial alternative disrupts the community
(e.g., traffic, temporary health risks, and
relocation).
Other Factors. This category of information
would include such things as institutional
factors that may inhibit implementing a
remedial alternative and any other
site-specific factors identified in the
course of the detailed analysis that may
influence which alternative is eventually
selected.
A-8
-------
TASK 13 - PRELIMINARY REPORT
Prepare a preliminary report presenting the results of
Tasks 8 through 13. Submit [specify number and
distribution] copies of the preliminary report to EPA and
the State [specify recipients]. (Note: EPA and the State
will review and select a remedial alternative.)
TASK 14 - FINAL REPORT
Prepare a final report for submission to EPA and the
State'. The report will include the results of Tasks 8
through 13, and should include any supplemental
information in appendices. This report will include a
responsiveness summary on public comments received.
Submit [specify number and distribution of copies] to EPA
and the State [specify recipients].
TASK 15 - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
[Specified based on site-specific issues.]
A-9
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING OFF-SITE RESPONSE ACTIONS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. Z04«0
OFFICE Ct
SOLIDWASTE AND EVEP11-
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-site
Resp«n«e Act-i'ona
/<£**?//' '/ '//>-<*<-•
FROM: J/ack \»: MtfGra*/
Acting Assistant Administrator
*/
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
This memorandum addresses procedures that oust be observed
when a response . action involving off-site storage, treatment or
disposal of hazardous substances is selected under the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). It prohibits use of a RCRA facility for off-site manage-
ment of Superfund hazardous substances if it has significant
RCRA violations' or other environmental conditions that affect
the satisfactory operation of the facility. It also addresses
requirements for analyzing and selecting response actions that
Involve permanent methods of managing hazardous substances.
In November of 1984, amendments to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act were enacted. These amendments impose new
requirements for the safe management of hazardous wastes. In
the case of land disposal facilities, the amendments require
that certain types of units (new, replacement and lateral exten-
sions) be double lined by May 9, 1985. The amendments impose
technical requirements to ensure that when land disposal facilities
are used they are used safely.
EPA Intends to follow the direction established by Congress
In the RCRA amendments when undertaking on-site response actions
1 A significant violation Includes a Class I violation as defined
by the RCRA Enforcement Response Policy (December 21, 1984).
This policy defines a Class I violation as a violation that
results In a release or a serious threat of releaae of hazardous
waste into the environment, or involves the failure to assure
that ground water will be protected, that proper closure and
post closure activities will be undertaken, or that hazardous
wastes will be destined for and delivered to RCRA permitted or
interim status facilities. The policy containa a list of
examples of violations which are Class I violations. Regions
should recognize that violations other than Class I violations
may be significant for purposes of these procedures, depending
on the situation at the facility.
B-l
-------
and when response actions Involve off-site management of hazardous
substances. This memorandum details how the Agency plans to
achieve these goals.
Section I of this memorandum discusses background Issues.
Section II A discusses the need to consider treatment, recycling
and reuse before off-site land disposal is used. Section II B
details procedures that must be followed in selecting any off-site
facility for management of hazardous substances. This section
also discusses the criteria to be used in making the selection.
For facilities in assessment monitoring, this part states that
conditions which lead to and result from being in assessment
monitoring may constitute conditions that render the facility
unsuitable for disposal of hazardous substances. Therefore,
when a facility is in assessment, the conditions which lead to
the required assessment, and any monitoring data, must be evalu-
ated to determine if the facility poses such conditions. If so,
the facility may not be used unless the owner or operator commits
to correct the problems and the unit to be used for disposal
poses no problems.
Section III discusses RCRA manifest requirements. Section IV
discusses PCB disposal requirements. Finally, Section V details
how this policy will be implemented. Attachment A is a chart
summarizing the policy on use of off-site RCRA facilities. This
chart should be used in conjunction with the policy document, not
in lieu of 1t.
These procedures are applicable to all response and enforce-
ment actions taken pursuant to CERCLA and section 7003 of RCRA.
This memorandum replaces guidance entitled "Requirements for
Selecting an Off-Site Option in a Superfund Response Action",
dated January 28, 1983. This policy is an interim one that the
Agency intends to publish as a notice in the Federal Register
in order to receive public comment on its provisions. After
reviewing these comments EPA will determine whether revisions
are necessary.
These revisions strengthen previous requirements in several
ways :
* Coverage - This memorandum extends requirements to
enforcement actions under *106 of CERCLA and J7003 of RCRA,
and expands requirements for removal actions.
0 Use of Treatment - These procedures require consideration
of treatment, recycling or reuse for all response and
B-2
-------
enforcement actions, to foster the use of more permanent
solutions, and, in the case of remedial actions, where
cost-effective. The Agency is not certain whether
sufficient capacity is available at this time to use
treatment in all cases where it is feasible. As more
information on capacity becomes available, the Agency
will re-examine requirements for treatment to determine
whether they can be strengthened. The previous procedures
did not address use of treatment.
' Requirements for a treatment, storage or disposal facility
Previous guidance required inspection within 12 months
before contract award for storage, treatment or disposal.
The revisions require Inspection within six months of
actual storage, treatment or disposal. It also stated
that if a facility had deficlences that resulted In unsound
treatment, storage or disposal practices it should not be
used. The guidance also required RCRA violations that
adversely affected facility performance to be corrected
prior to contract award. Under the revisions, a facility
that has significant RCRA violations or other environmental
conditions that affect its satisfactory operation may not
be used unless certain conditions are met. First, there
must be a compliance agreement in place to correct all
deficiencies at the facility; second, the unit that is
used must not cause or contribute to significant problems
at the facility. This provision recognizes that in some
situations it is infeasible to complete correction of all
violations prior to using a facility (for example, it may
take several years before pumping and treating of xround-
water is completed) and that there may be a unit at such
a facility that is sound.
* Land Disposal Facilities - The '984 RCRA amendments Impose
new requirements on land dlspo .i facilities. When use
of such facilities is contemplated, the policy requires that
the facility meet these minimum technical requirements.
I. BACKGROUND
Facilities that are not in compliance with RCRA requirements
may be unacceptable to use for treatment, storage ar disposal of
hazardous substances from response actions. Facilities used for
management of substances In connection with response actions
should not pose a significant threat to public health, welfare or
the environment.
CERCLA contains two references to off-site management of
hazardous substances. First, CERCLA section 104(c) requires, as
a condition of Fund-financed remedial response, that the State
assure the availability of an acceptable facility in compliance
with the requirements of subtitle C of RCRA for any off-site
management of hazardous substances. Second, where remedial
measures include off-site storage, treatment, destruction or
secure disposition, the statute also requires such measures to
be more cost-effective than other remedial measures, create new
disposal capacity In compliance with Subtitle C of RCRA or be
necessary to protect public health, welfare or the environment
B-3
-------
fro* a present or potential risk which nay be created by further
exposure to substances. Section 300.65 (b)(6) of the National
Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300) states that when off-site action is
taken in connection with a removal action the facility used for
off-site management must be In compliance with Subtitle C of
RCRA. This memorandum establishes procedures for Implementing
these CERCLA and NCP provisions.
These procedures apply to all removal, remedial, and enforce-
ment actions taken pursuant to CERCLA and section 7003 of RCRA.
Any other parties undertaking cleanup under other authorities
are urged to comply with these procedures. In the case of
Superfund-financed removal actions or enforcement actions taken
as a removal action In response to an immediate and significant
threat, compliance with these procedures is mandatory unless the
On-Seene Coordinator (OSC) determines that the exigencies of the
situation require off-site treatment, storage or disposal without
following the requirements. This exception may be used In cases
where the OSC believes that the immediacy of the threat posed by
the substances makes it imperative to remove the substances and
there is Insufficient time to observe these procedures without
endangering public health, welfare or the environment. In such
cases, the OSC should consider, to the extent possible, temporary
solutions (e.g., interim storage) in order that the feasibility
of using treatment can be evaluated prior to a decision to use
land disposal. Also, in such cases, the OSC must provide a
written explanation of his decision to the Regional Administrator.
This explanation should be provided within 60 days of taking
the action. In Regions in which authority to make removal deci-
sions has not been fully delegated by the Regional Administrator,
the decisions discussed above must be made by the Regional official
that is delegated removal decision making authority.
II. PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
This section discusses in detail the requirements Regions
must follow in assessing and selecting an off-site RCRA facility
for management of Superfund hazardous substances. Part A requires
consideration of treatment, recycling or reuse for on-site and
off-site actions in order to foster the use of more permanent
methods of managing hazardous substances. These policies are
consistent with directions taken by Congress in the 1984 amend-
ments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Furthermore,
Part B of this section establishes procedures Regions must use
in selecting an off-site RCRA facility for management of hazardous
substances. Where off-site land disposal must be used, this Part
requires that disposal facilities be in compliance with the appli-
cable technical requirements of RCRA.
A. Treatment
It is EPA's policy to pursue response actions that use
treatment, reuse or recycling over land disposal to the greatest
B-4
-------
extent practicable, consistent with CERCLA requirements for
cost-effective remedial actions. EPA requires that such alterna-
tives be considered for all Fund-financed and private party
removal and remedial actions. For Fund-financed removals or
enforced actions in response to iamediate and significant threats,
treatment, reuse or recycling must be considered, unless the OSC
determines that treatment, reuse or recycling methods are not
reasonably available considering the exigencies of the situation,
or they pose a significant environmental hazard.
When developing remedial alternatives, treatment, reuse or
recycling must be considered. Such alternatives should not be
screened out on the basis of cost alone. Section 300.68(h)(l) of
the HCP allows rejection of alternatives during the screening
stage based on cost, only when the cost of the alternative far
exceeds the cost of others (e.g., by an order of magnitude) and
does not provide substantially greater public health and environ-
mental benefits.
Detailed analysis of these alternatives should include
consideration 'of long-term effectiveness of treatment and compara-
tive long and short term coses of treatment as compared to other
remedial alternatives. Finally, when recommending and selecting
the appropriate remedial action, treatment, reuse or recycling
may be found more protective of public health and the environment
than land disposal. Such alternatives may be recommended as the
appropriate remedial action where the detailed analysis of
alternatives shows that the alternative is more cost-effective
than others in minimizing the* damage to public health, welfare
or the environment. During the next six months, EPA will be
developing additional guidelines for evaluating the comparative
long-term costs of treatment and land disposal.
At this time, the Agency does not know the current and
projected treatment capacity available, nor the needs or capacity
that will be required for Superfund actions in the future. Over
the next several months, the Agency plans to undertake a study
of available treatment and interim storage capacity and needs.
Once completed, this analysis will provide information on treat-
ment facilities currently operating for Regions to use. Additional
information on capacity will be provided at a later date through
a more comprehensive capacity survey being undertaken in support
of the implementation of the 1984 RCRA amendments.
B. Requirements for selecting storage, treatment or disposal
facilities
Selection of an appropriate facility for off-site management
of hazardous substances requires that a judgment be made as
to the overall acceptability of the facility to receive the
substances and the acceptability of the unit that will receive
the hazardous substances. In making this judgment the following
steps must be observed:
1. The owner or operator of any hazardous waste management
facility under consideration for off-site storage, treatment or
B-5
-------
actions under CE1CLA or ••ctloo 7003 of RCRA must have an applic-
able ICIA permit or Interim status.2
2. A RCRA compliance inspection must be performed at any
hssardous watte management facility before It can receive hazardous
substances from a response action. This inspection must assess
whether there are any significant violations or other environmental
conditions that affect the satisfactory operation of the facility.
The RCRA compliance inspection must have taken place not more than
six months prior to the storage, treatment or disposal of the
hasardous substances from a response action. If the inspection
has not taken place or is not scheduled, REM/FIT contractor
personnel may conduct the Inspection under the direction of the
Deputy Project Officer, working in cooperation with RCRA Regional
personnel. If Regions use contractor personnel, the Region should
ensure that auch peraonnel are adequately trained to conduct
Inspections. Further guidance on conducting Inspections when a
facility is being considered for management of hazardous substances
will be issued in the near future. The FY 85 and FY 86 RCRA Imple-
mentation Plans establish compliance monitoring and enforcement
targets. For FY 85 the guidsnce requires Comprehensive Ground-
Water Monitoring Evaluations (CGMEs) st one third of the ground
water monitoring facilities. Top priorities for this type of
inspection are all facilities receiving wastes from Superfund
sites.
In States with Phase I or II Interim authorization or final
authorization, the inspection should be conducted In accordance
with State regulations or permit conditions. EPA Regions
should always involve States when undertaking an inspection
at a RCRA facility that is likely to accept Superfund wastes.
Regions must use the results from the inspection, along
with other information, to determine whether the facility Is an
acceptable one.
Both permitsand interim status apply to specific wastes and
specific storage, treatment or diaposal processes. The Remedial
Project Manager (RPM) or OSC must determine thst the facility's
permit or interim status Includes the waates that would be
transported to the facility and the type of process for which
wastes are being taken to the facility. Because of these
concerns, it is important that facility selection be coordinated
with RCRA personnel. However, not all CERCLA substances are
hazardous wastes under RCRA. Therefore, it is possible that a
particular permit may not cover a hazardous substance that may
be taken to the RCRA facility if it is not a hazardous waste.
Moreover, In some situations a hazardous substance under CERCLA
may trigger diaposal requirements under other laws (for example,
PCBs and some radioactive substances). In such cases the
applicable requirements of these other laws must be observed.
B-6
-------
3. It !• BPA's policy to minimize the use of land disposal In
accordance with the direction taken by Congress In amending RCRA.
Where land disposal Is used, these amendments establish nev tech-
nical standards for land disposal facilities. New disposal units,
lateral expansions and replacement units (defined as of November 8,
1984) of interim status landfills and surface impoundments must
have et least two liners and a leachate detection, collection
end removal system above (In the case of landfills) and between
the liners, if they receive wastes after Nay 8, 1985. All Fund-
financed and enforced response actions (removal and remedial)
Involving the off-site disposal of hazardous substances must Involve
use of disposal facilities that are in compliance with applicable
RCRA minimum technical reqlurements. This means that units first
receiving wastes after November 8, 1984 cannot receive wastes
after May 8, 1985 If not double lined. The RCRA statute does
allow continued use of existing units after that date. In consider-
ing whether to use an existing unit that does not meet the double
liner requirements, the Agency will consider the toxlclty, persis-
tence and mobility of the hazardous substances and the need to
segregate these substances from others. Such a unit can be
used only if it is shown to adequately protect public health and
the environment.
CERCLA hazardous substances which are not hazardous wastes
under RCRA may, in some circumstances,be disposed of in other
legal units. In such cases, disposal should take place in accordance
with other legal requirements. Hazardous substances which are not
hazardous wastes may be taken to a RCRA unit under the terms out-
lined in the preceeding paragraph, or to a unit legal under other
statutory provisions (for example, PCBs may be disposed of in a
TSCA approved disposal facility and radlocatlve materials In a
radioactive materials disposal facility). This disposal must be
consistent with Section 104(c)(3) of CERCLA, when applicable.
4. Interim status land disposal facilities under considera-
tion for off-site disposal must have adequate ground water
monitoring data to assess whether the facility poses a threat to
ground water.3 Due to the lack of compliance with RCRA ground
water requirements, available data nay not be adequate to assess
the facility. Moreover, l«cK of evidence of contamination from
the monitoring data does not necessarily mean the facility Is
secure. The monitoring data may be faulty. In addition, there
may be other problems at the facility such as air emissions or
surface run-off. Where doubt exists concerning the acceptability
of a facility, an on-slte inspection should be undertaken to
specifically address these concerns. Where possible, this
on-slte inspection should be part of the required RCRA compliance
inspection.
All remaining land disposal permit applications will be
requested in FY 1985. These applications contain summaries
of ground water monitoring data obtained during the interim
status period, and are required to Identify any plume
contamination.
B-7
-------
5. Using information gathered fro* the compliance Inspection,
other data sources (e.g., RCRA facility permit data), any other
facility visits and all other relevant information, Regional
Offices »ust evaluate and make a judgment on the acceptability of
uslag the facility for storage, treatment or disposal of hazardous
substances. For the facility as a whole, this evaluation should
consider whether there are any RCRA violations or other environ-
mental conditions* at the facility which affect its satisfactory
operation. This evaluation should Include consideration of
facility operations as well as whether there arc physical condi-
tions at the facility that pose a aignlficant threat to public
health, welfare or the environment. For facilities in assessment
monitoring, the conditions which lead to required assessment
monitoring, as well as resulting monitoring data, must be evaluated,
The evaluation also should consider the nature and quantity of the
substances and whether it is feasible to treat the substances prior
to land disposal to mitigate any adverse effects.
No Superfund hazardous substances shall be taken off-site to
a RCRA facility if the Region determines that the facility has
significant RCRA violations or other environmental conditions that
affect the satisfactory operation of the facility, unless
both the following conditions are met:
(1) The owner or operator must commit, through an enforce-
able agreement (i.e., consent order or decree), to
correct the problem. The agreement must be signed
before the facility may receive the hazardous
substances. In addition, the Regional Administrator
must determine that the agreement is likely to result
in correction of the problem and the owner or operator
of the facility Is capable of compliance with the terms
of the agreement; and
(2) Disposal only occurs within the facility at a new or
existing unit that is in compliance with RCRA require-
ments. The new or existing unit must not contribute
in any significant way to adverse conditions at the
facility.
III. MANIFEST REQUIREMENTS
If an off-site option is chosen, a manifest for the transpor-
tation of the hazardous waste must be obtained. The manifest muse
It is recognized that the RCRA regulations may not at this
time cover all environmental conditions at a facility. Regional
offices may consider other environmental factors at a facility
under consideration Including other State and/or Federal
environmental laws. If a facility Is In assessment monitor-
ing, the conditions which lead to assessment monitoring may
constitute environmental conditions that adversely affect
facility operations. In such cases, Regions should assess the
conditions at the facility prior to using the facility for
Superfund purposes.
B-8
-------
b« la compliance with RCRA for the transportation of hazardous
wastes. Th« manlfeat must be a Uniform Hasardoua Wast* Manifest
in compliance with requirement* at 40 CPR 262 (see 49 FR 10490,
March 20, 1984). The lead agency or other party undertaking
the cleanup must ensure that the tranaporter properly notifies
under RCRA section 3010. Where the lead agency allows contractors
to fill out the manifest, the agency should ensure that the
manifest is properly filed.
IV. PCS DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
Requirements for the disposal of PCBs are established in
40 CFR 761.60. Generally, these regulations require that whenever
disposal of PCBs are undertaken, they muat be Incinerated, unless
the concentrations are less than 50 ppm. If the concentrations
are between 50 and 500 ppm, the rule provides for certain excep-
tions that provide alternatives to the incineration requirements.
The principal alternative Is disposal in an EPA approved landfill
for PCBs. Landfills used for PCB disposal muat be inspected
within six months prior to disposal. Regions must determine the
acceptability of the facility based on the same criteria used to
evaluate RCRA facilities in Section II.B.5.
V. IMPLEMENTATION
Beginning (30 days from date this document is signed) all
Records of Decision (RODs) and Enforcement Decision Documents
(EDDs) for Superfund-lead and enforcement lead actions, respec-
tively, must Include a discussion of compliance with theae pro-
cedures for alternatives involving off-site management of Superfund
hazardous substances at RCRA facilities. Decision documents for
removal actions also should Include discussion of compliance with
theae procedures. It is recognized that actual offslte facility
Information will not be available at the ROD stage. However, the
RI and FS should use actual off-site facilities in costing remedial
alternatives, in order to have cost figures that are aa accurate
as possible. It Is recognized that additional facilities are
likely to be considered during the bidding process. Any facility
ultimately selected for disposal, treatment or storage must meet
the requirements of this policy.
Provisions requiring compliance with these procedures must be
Included in any contracta for response, cooperative agreements
with Statea undertaking Superfund response and all enforcement
agreements. For ongoing projects, these provisions will be
implemented aa follows:
RI/FS: The Regions shall immediately notify Agency contractors
and States that 1) alternatives for off-site management
of wastes must be evaluated pursuant to the provisions
of this policy, and 2) consistent with the policy on
other environmental laws, treatment alternatives
should not be dropped during the screening stage.
RD: The Regions shall immediately notify Agency contractors,
the Statea, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that
B-9
-------
RA:
Enforcement:
all remedies that Include off-site disposal of hazardous
substances must comply with the provisions of this
policy pertaining to selection of an acceptable off-site
facility.
The Regions shall immediately assess the compliance
status of land disposal facilities receiving hazardous
wastes from ongoing projects. For a facility not in
compliance, the Region should take immediate steps
to bring the facility Into compliance with the policy.
Actions currently under negotiation and all future
actions must comply with these procedures. Existing
agreements need not be amended. However, EPA reserves
the right to apply these procedures to existing
agreements, to the extent it is consistent with the
release and reopener clauses in the settlement agree-
ment (See the Interim CERCLA Settlement Policy. Part
VII; Thomas, Price, Rablcht; December S, 1984).
If the response action la proceeding under a Federal-lead,
the Regions should work with the Corps of Engineers or EPA
Contracts Officer to negotiate a contracts modification to an
existing contract, if necessary. If the response action is
proceeding under a State-lead, the Regions should amend the
cooperative agreement. Exceptions for existing contracts and
cooperative agreements may be allowed on a case-by-case basis
by the appropriate Headquarters Office Director.
All Regions must adopt procedures to implement and continual-
ly monitor compliance with these requirements. The procedures
must Include designation of a management official who is respon-
sible for providing information on RCRA facilities in the Region
to other Regions. It is the responsibility of the Region in
which the RCRA offsite facility is locsted to assess the accept-
ability of the facility in consultation with the Region planning to
ship wastes to the facility. The namea of these officials should
be provided to the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement by May
21, 1985. These names will then be forwarded to all Regions.
If you have any questions concerning these procedures, please
contact Sylvia K. Lowrance (FTS 382-4812).
Attachments
B-10
-------
3928
APPENDIX C
Federal Register f Vol. 50, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 1985 / Proposed Rules
Appendix
Not*.—This is an Appendix to the
document and will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Memorandum
Subject: CERCLA Compliance With
Other Environmental Statutes
From: Lee M. Thomas, Assistant
Administrator
To: Regional Administrator Regions I-X
This memorandum sets forth the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
policy on the applicability of the'
standards, criteria, advisories, and
guidance of other State and Federal
environmental and public health
statutes to actions taken pursuant to
sections 104 and 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA). This policy
addresses considerations for on-site and
off-site actions taken under CERCLA.
I. Discussion
The National Contingency Plan (NCP)
establishes the process for determining
appropriate removal and/or remedial
actions at Superfund sites. In the course
of this process, EPA will give primary
consideration to the selection of those
response actions that are effective in
preventing or, where prevention is not
practicable, minimizing the release of
hazardous substances so that they do
not migrate to cause substantial danger
to present or future public health,
welfare, or the environment. As a
general rule, this can be accomplished
by pursuing remedies that meet the
standards of applicable or relevant
Federal public health or environmental
laws. However, because of the unique
circumstances at particular sites, there
may be alternatives that do not meet the
standards of other laws, but which still
provide protection of public health,
welfare, and the environment.
Although response actions which
prevent hazardous substances from
migrating into the environment are seen
as the most effective under CERCLA,
actions which minimize migration must
also be considered since CERCLA
primarily addresses inadequate past
disposal practices and resulting unique
site conditions. At certain sites, it may
be technically impracticable,
environmentally unacceptable or
excessively costly to implement a
response action that prevents migration
or restores the site to its original,
uncontamir.ated condition.
II. Policy
Section 104 of CERCLA requires that
for off-site remedial actions, storage.
destruction, treatment or secure
disposition be in compliance with
subtitle C of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). CERCLA is
silent, however, concerning the
requirements of other laws with regard
to all other response actions taken
pursuant to sections 104 and 106. As a
general rule, the Agency's policy is to
attain or exceed applicable or relevant
environmental and public health
standards in CERCLA response actions
unless one of the specifically
enumerated situations is present. Where
such a situation is present and a
standard is not used, the Agency must
document and explain the reasons in the
decision documents. Federal criteria and
advisories, and State standards also will
be considered in fashioning CERCLA
remedies and. if appropriate, relevant
portions will be used. If EPA does not
use a relevant part of these standards,
criteria or advisories in the remedial
action, the decision documents will state
the reasons.
A. On-site Response Actions
(1) For removal actions. EPA's policy
is to pursue actions that will meet
applicable or relevant standards, and
criteria of other Federal environmental
and public health laws to the maximum
extent practicable, considering the
exigencies of the situation.
(2) For remedial actions. EPA's policy
is to pursue remedies that attain or
exceed applicable and relevant
standards of other Federal public health
and environmental laws, unless specific
circumstances, identified below, exist.
CERCLA procedural and
administrative requirements will be
modified to provide safeguards similar
to those provided under other laws.
Application for and receipt of permits is
not required for on-site response actions
taken under the Fund-financed or
enforcement authorities of CERCLA.
fl. Off-Site Response Actions
CERCLA removal and remedial
activities that involve the removal of
hazardous substances from a CERCLA
site to off-site facilities for proper
storage, treatment or disposal must be in
compliance with all applicable or
relevant standards of Federal
environmental and public health
statutes.
Off-site facilities that are used for
storage, treatment, or disposal of
Superfund wastes must have all
appropriate permits or authorizations.
If the facility or process that is being
considered for receipt of the Superfund
wastes has not been permitted or
authorized, the State or responsible
party will be required to obtain all
appropriate permits. A State's
responsibility for obtaining any
appropriate Federal. State or local
permits (e.g. RCRA. TSCA. NPDES.
Clean Air. etc.) will be specified in a
contract or cooperative agreement with
the State as part of its assurances
required under section 104(c) of
CERCLA.
HI. Federal and State Requirements That
May Be Relevant or Applicable to
Response Action*
Federal and State environmental
standards, guidance and advisories fall
into two categories:
• Federal standards that are relevant
or applicable.
• Other standards, criteria, advisories
or guidance to be considered.
C-l
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12. 1985 / Proposed Rules
5929
A complete list of both categories of
requirements is attached. This list is our
initial effort. A revised and annotated
list will be included in the forthcoming
Guidance for Feasibility Studies.
A. Federal Standards That Are Relevant
or Applicable
Applicable standards are those
standards that would be specifically
triggered by the circumstances
associated with the proposed Superfund
remedy except for the fact that the
proposed action would be undertaken
pursuant to CERCLA section 104 or
section 106.
Relevant standards are those
designed to apply to circumstances
sufficiently similar to those encountered
at CERCLA sites in which their
application would be appropriate at a
specific site although not legally
required. Standards also are relevant if
they would be legally applicable to
CERCLA ( 104 or 1108 actions but for
legal technicalities such as trigger dates
or definitions. For example. TSCA PCB
standards would be relevant even
though the PCBs were produced prior to
January 1976. which triggers TSCA
requirements.
B. Other Requirements. Advisories or
Guidances To Be Considered
This category includes other
standards, criteria, advisories and
guidance that may be useful in
developing Superfund remedies. These
requirements, advisories and guidances
were developed by EPA, other Federal
Agencies and the States. The data
underlying these requirements may be
used at Superfund sites in an
appropriate way.
IV. Implementation
A. Removal Actions
For both on and off-site removal
actions, the On-Scene-Coordinator
should consult with the Regional
Response Team within the framework of
the Regional Contingency Plan to
determine the most effective action.
(1) On-site. For on-site removal
actions, the OSC should attempt to
attain all Federal applicable or relevant
public health or environmental
standards. The OSC also should
consider other Federal criteria, guidance
and advisories as well as State
standards in formulating the removal
action. However, because removal
actions often involve situations
requiring expeditous action to protect
public health, welfare, or the
environment, it may not always be
feasible to fully meet them. In those
circumstances where they cannot be
attained, the decision documents. OSC
reports, or other documents should
specify the reasons.
(2) Off-site. Off-site facilities that are
used for storage, treatment, or disposal
of Superfund wastes must have all
appropriate permits or authorizations.
B. Remedial Actions
1. Presentation and Analysis of
Alternatives. As part of the feasibility
study (FS), at least one alternative for
each of the following must, at a
minimum, be evaluated within the
requirements of the feasibility study
guidance and presented to the decision-
maker.
(a) Alternatives for treatment or
disposal in an off-site facility, as
appropriate;1
(b) Alternativs which attain
applicable and relevant Federal public
health or environmental standards;
(c) As appropriate, alternatives which
exceed applicable and relevent public
health or environmental standards;
(d) Alternatives which do not attain
applicable or relevant public' health or
environmental standards but will reduce
the likelihood of present or future threat
from the hazardous substances. This
must include an alternative which
closely approaches the level of
protection provided by the applicable or
relevant standards and meets CERCLA'5
objective of adequately protecting
public health, welfare and environment;
(e) A no action alternative.
In some cases, there may be some
overlap between these alternatives.
2. Selection of Remedy. The decision-
maker will consider all of the
alternatives arrayed in the feasibility
study and wihVgive primary
consideration to remedies that attain or
exceed applicable or relevant Federal
public health and environmental
standards. Where the selected remedy
involves an EPA standard, criterion, or
advisory, the decision-maker will ensure
appropriate coordination with affected
EPA programs.
In appropriate cases, the decision-
maker may select a remedial action that
includes both on and off-site
components.
The decision-maker may select an
alternative that does not attain
applicable or relevant standards in one
of the following circumstances.
recognizing that a consideration in
making this determination is the extent
to which the standard was intended to
apply to the specific circumstances
present at the site.2
a. The selected alternative is not the
final remedy and will become part of a
more comprehensive remedy;
b. All of the alternatives which meet
applicable or relevant standards fall
into one or more of the following
categories:
(i) Fund-Balancing—For Fund-
financed actions only; exercise the
Fund-balancing provisions of CERCLA
section 104(c)(4);
(ii) Technically impracticahty—It is
technically impractical from an
engineering perspective to achieve the
standard at the specific site in question;
(iii) Unacceptable environmental
impacts—All alternatives that attain or
exceed standards would cause
unacceptable damage to the
environment: or
(c) Where the remedy is to be carried
out pursuant to CERCLA section 106: the
Hazardous Response Trust Fund is
unavailable or would be used: there is a
strong public interest in expedited clean
up; and the litigation probably would
not result in the desired remedy.
Where one of these situations is
present, the decision-maker may select
an alternative which does not attain or
exceed applicable or relevant public
health or environmental standards. The
basis for not meeting the standard must
be fully documented and explained in
the appropriate decision documents.
The Agency anticipates that most of
CERCLA remedial actions will attain or
exceed applicable or relevant public
health or environmental standards.
However, where the specific
circumstances discussed above preclude
the selection of a remedy that attains
standards, the decision-maker will
select the alternative that most closely
approaches the level of protection
provided by the applicable or relevant
standard, considering the reasons for
not meeting that standard.
EPA also will use appropriate Federal
public health and environmental
criteria, advisories, and guidance and
State standards in developing
appropriate remedial alternatives. If the
decision-maker determines that such
1 Thcu alternative! mull bt continent with
forthcoming guidance on "Procedure* for
Implementing CERCLA Delegation! for Off-Sue
ReiponM Actiona." In tome casee. off-site diipotal
or treatment may not be feanble and thil
altemetive may be eliminated during initial
icreemng of altemaiivei. The daemon document!
should reflect this screening.
1 In determining whether l particular standard is
applicable or relevant (he decinon-maker should
refer to the attached list "Applicable or Relevant
Requirements " For example. RCRA did not
"contemplate ' the regulation of the mdiscnmmanl
disposal of waste over 210 miles of roadway, or the
contamination of a mer bed with hazardous waste
In such situations. RCRA regulations would not be
applicable per se. but on a case-by-case basis part
of the regulation may be relevant
C-2
-------
5f»
Federal BefUter / Vol. 50. No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12. 1985 / Proposed Rules
standard!, criteria, advitories or
goideance we relevant bat are not used
in the selected remedial alternative, the
decision documents will indicate the
basis for not using them.
For Fund-financed action*, where
State standard* are part of the colt-
effective remedy, the Fond will pay to
attain thoee standard*. Where the cost-
effective remedy doe* not include thoaa
State standards, the State may pay the
difference to attain them.
3. AdmiiuitraUve and Procedural
Aspects. The following modification*
will be made to the Superfuitd
community relation* program to ensure
that it provides a similar level of public
involvement to that provided by the
permitting program* of other
environmental law*;
• A-fact sheet should be included
with the public notice and feasibility
study which i* provided to tae public Z
week* before the 3 week public
comment period. The fact sheet will
clearly summarize the feasibility study
response alternative* and other issues.
including which alternatives attain or
exceed public health and environmental
standards and criteria. For those
alternatives that do not attain
applicable and relevant standard* of
other public health and environmental
law*, the fact sheet shall identify how
they fail to attain the standard* and
explain how they nonetheless meet the
goals of CERCLA. The public notice
should include a timetable in which a
decision will be reached, any tentative
determinations which the Agency has
made, the location where relevant
document* can be obtained,
identification of community involvement
opportunities, the name of an Agency
contact and other appropriate •
information.
• A public notice and updated fact
sheet should be prepared upon [1]
Agency selection of the final response
action and (2) upon completion of the
final engineering design. Prior to
selecting the final engineering design.
the Agency may hold a public meeting to
inform the public of the design
alternatives and solicit comments.
• If a remedy is identified that is
different from those proposed during the
feasibility study public comment period.
a new 3 week public comment period
may be required prior to amending the
record of decision, taking into
consideration the features of the
alternatives addressed in the public
comment period.
In addition, certain aspects of the
CERCLA administrative process may be
modified to assure comparability with
the administrative requirements (i.e.
recordkeeping. monitoring) of the other
environmental programs.
The CERCLA enforcement community
relations program will also be modified
to provide for an enhanced public
participation program for both consent
decrees and administrative orders. This
program will be substantially equivalent
to the revised program for Fund-
financed actions. Furthermore, consent
decrees and administrative orders will
incorporate administrative requirements
(i.e. recordkeeping. monitoring) similar
to those mandated by other
environmental programs.
V. Applicability of Policy
This policy applies to three different
situations:
• A site specific FS has not yet been
initiated.
• The FS ha* been initiated, but the
remedy ha* not yet been selected.
• The FS is completed and the remedy
has been selected.
All sites where the FS ha* not yet
been initiated must meet all of the
requirement* of this policy.
Where the FS ha* been initiated and
the remedy ha* not yet been selected,
the requirement* of this policy do not
apply to Record of Decisions (ROD*)
signed before March 1.1985. RODs
signed before March 1.1985. should
present to the decision-maker at least
one alternative that attains or exceeds
applicable or relevant standards and, if
it is not selected should indicate the
reasons why it was not selected.
Where the FS is complete and the
remedy has been selected, the decision-
maker may on a case-by-case basis
revise the selected remedy.
If you have any questions or
comments, please contact William N.
Hedeman. Director. Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (FTS 382-2180)
or Douglas Cohen of his Policy Analysis
Staff (FTS 382-3044).
Attachment
Applicable or Relevant Requirement*
7. Office of Solid Waste
• Open Dump Criteria (RCRA Subtitle
D. 40 CFR Part 257)
Not*.—OnTy relevant to nonhatardons
waste* In molt ntuatioos Supcrfund wanes
will be handled in accordance with RCRA
Subtitle C requirements.
• Hazardous Waste Regulations
[RCRA Subtitle C. 40 CFR Part 254)
including liner, cap, groundwater. and
closure requirements under the
following subpartr
F. Ground-Water Protection
G. Closure and Post Closure
H. Container*
I. Tanks
J. Surface Impoundments
K. Waste Piles
L Land Treatment
M. Landfills
N. Incinerators
2. Office of Water
• Maximum Contaminant Levels (for
alt sources of drinking water exposure).
• Underground Injection Control
Regulations.
• State Water Quality Standards
(apply for surface water discharge).
• Requirements establiahed pursuant
to section 301 and section 403(c) of the
Clean Water Act.
• Ocean Dumping Requirements
including incineration at sea.
• Pretreatment standards for
discharge into a publicly owned
treatment work*.
3. Offica of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
• "PCS Requirements including
Disposal and Marking Rule (43 FR 7150,
2-17-78): PCB Ban Rule (44 FR 31514. 5-
31-79) PCB Electrical Equipment Rule
(47 FR 37342, August 25,1982):
Uncontrolled PCBs Rule (49 FR 28172,
July 10.1984) and other related -
rulemakings."
• 40 CFR 775 Subpart J—Disposal of
Waste Material Containing TCDD.
4. Office of External Affain
• Guidelines for Specification of
Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill
Material (section 404fb)(l) Guidelines.
40 CFR Part 230).
• Denial or Restriction of Disposal
Site for Dredged Material Final rule
(section 404(c)).
5. Office of Air and Radiation
• Uranium mill tailing rules.
• National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
• High and low level radioactive
waste rule.
• Asbestos disposal rules.
6. Other Federal Requirements
• OSHA requirements.
• Preservation of scientific, historical
or archaeological data.
• D.O.T. Hazardous Materials
Transport Rules.
• Regulation of activities in or
affecting waters of the United States
pursuant to 33 CFR 320-329.
• The following requirements are
triggered by fund-financed actions:
—Preservation of rivers on the national
inventory. Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act. section 40 CFR 8.302(e).
—Protection of threatened or
endangered species and their habitats
C-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12. 1985 / Proposed Rules
5931
—Conservation or Wildlife Resources.
—Executive Orders related to
Floodplams (11988) and Wetlands
(11990).
—Coastal Zone Management Act.
Other Requirements. Advisories and
Guidance To Be Considered
1. Federal Requirements. Advisories and
Procedures
• Recommended Maxim-un
Concentration Limits (RMCLs).
• Health Advisories, EPA. Office of
Water.
• Federal Water Quality Criteria.
Not*.—Federal water quality criteria are
not legally enforceable. State water quality
standards, developed using appropriate
aspects of Federal water quality criteria, are
legally enforceable. In many cases, States
water quality standards do not include
specific numerical limitations on a large
number of priority pollutants. When there are
no numerical state standards for a given
pollutant Federal water quality criteria
should be considered.
• Pesticide and Food additive
tolerances and action levels data.
Note.—Germane portions of tolerances and
action levels may be relevant in certain
situations.
• Waste load allocation procedures,
EPA Office of Water.
• Federal Sole Source Aquifer
requirements.
• Public health basis in listing
decisions under sec. 112 of the Clean Air
Act.
• EPA's groundwater protection
strategy.
• New Source Performance Standards
for Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids.
• TSCA health data.
• Pesticide registration data.
• TSCA chemical advisories (2 or 3
issued to date).
• Advisories issued by FWS and
NWFS under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act.
• National Environmental Policy Act.
• Floodplain and Wetlands Executive
Orders.
• TSCA Compliance Program Policy.
2. State Requirements
• State Requirements on Disposal and
Transport of Radioactive wastes.
• State Approval of Water Supply
System Additions or Developments.
• State Ground Water Withdrawal
Approvals.
• Requirements of authorized
(Subtitle C of RCRA) State hazardous
waste programs.
• State Implementation Plans and
Delegated Programs Under Clean Air
Act.
• All other State requirements, not
delegated through EPA authority.
Note.—Many other State and local
requirements could be relevant. The guidance
for feasibility studies will include a more
comprehensive list.
3. USEPA RCRA Guidance Documents
A. EPA's RCRA Design Guidelines
(1) Surface Impoundments, Liners
Systems, Final Cover and Freeboard
Control.
(2) Waste Pile Design—Liner Systems.
(3) Land Treatment Units.
(4) Landfill Design—Liner Systems
and Final Cover.
B. Permitting Guidance Manuals
(1) Permit Applicant's Guidance
Manual of Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment, Storage. Disposal Facilities.
(2) Permit Writer's Guidance Manual
for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment
Storage. Disposal Facilities.
(3) Permit Writer's Guidance Manual
for Subpart F.
(4) Permit Applicants Guidance
Manual for the General Facility
Standards.
(5) Waste Analysis Plan Guidance
Manual.
(6) Permit Writer's Guidance Manual
for Hazardous Waste Tanks.
(7) Model Permit Application for
Existing Incinerators.
(8) Guidance Manual for Evaluating
Permit Applications for the Operation of
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Units.
(9) A Guide for Preparing RCRA
Permit Applications for Existing Storage
Facilities.
(10) Guidance Manual on closure and
post-closure Interim Status Standards.
C. Technical Resource Documents
(TRDs)
(1) Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid
and Hazardous Waste.
(2) Hydrologic Simulation of Solid
Waste Disposal Sites.
(3) Landfill and Surface Impoundment
Performance Evaluation.
(4) Lining of Water Impoundment and
Disposal Facilities.
(5) Management of Hazardous Waste
Leachate.
(6) Guide to the Disposal of
Chemically Stabilized and Solidified
Waste.
(7) Closure of Hazardous Waste
Surface Impoundments.
(8) Hazardous Waste Land Treatment.
(9) Soil Properties. Classification, and
Hydraulic Conductivity Testing.
D. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste
(1) Solid Waste Leaching Procedure
Manual.
(2) Methods for the Prediction of
Leachate Plume Migration and Mixing.
(3) Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance (HELP) Model Hydrologic
Simulation on Solid Waste Disposal
Sites.
(4) Procedures for Modeling Flow
Through Clay Liners.
(5) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes.
(8) A Method for Determining the
Compatibility of Hazardous Wastes.
(7) Guidance Manual on Hazardous
Waste Compatibility.
4. USEPA Office of Water Guidance
Documents
A. Pretreatment Guidance Documents
(1) 304(g) Guidance Document Revised
Pretreatment Guidelines (3 Volumes).
Provides technical data describing
priority pollutants and their effects on
wastewater treatment processes to be
used in developing local limits:
descnbes technologies applicable to
categorical industries.
B. Water Quality Guidance Documents
(1) Ecological Evaluation of Proposed
Discharge of Dredged Material into
Ocean Waters (1977).
(2) Technical Support Manual:
Waterbody Surveys and Assessments
for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses (1983).
Outlines methods for conducting use
attainability analyses under the Clean
Water Act.
(3) Water-Related Environmental Fate
of 129 Priority Pollutants (1979).
Describe the transformation and
transportation of priority pollutants.
(4) Water Quality Standards
Handbook (1983).
Provides an overview of the Criteria
Standards Program under the Clean
Water Act and outlines methods for
conducting criteria standards
modification.
(5) Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control.
C. NPDES Guidance Documents
(1) NPDES Best Management Practices
Guidance Manual (June 1981).
Provides a protocol for evaluating
BMPs for controlling discharges of toxic
and hazardous substances to receiving
waters.
(2) Biomomtoring Guidance. July 1983,
subsequent biomonitoring policy
statements, and case studies on toxicity
reduction evaluation (May 1983).
D. Ground Water/UlC Guidance
Document
(1) Designation of a USDW.
(2) Elements of Aquifer Identification.
C-4
-------
5*82 Federal Re&fter / Vol. 50, No. 29 / Tuesday. February 12. 1965 / Proposed Rules
(3) Interim guidance for public
participation.
(4) Definition of major facilities.
(5) Corrective action requirements.
(6) Requirement! applicable to wells
injecting into, through or above an
aquifer which has been exempted
pursuant to 5 146.104(b)(4).
(7) Guidance for UIC implementation
on Indian lands.
J. USEPA Manuals From the Office of
Research and Development
(1) EW 846 method*—laboratory
analytic methods.
(2) Lab protocols developed pursuant
to Clean Water Act section 304(h).
(FR Doc. 85-2402 Filed 2-11-83. 8:45 am]
f1— S
J u US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1985 - 559-111/10857
------- |