EPA
         United States
         Environmental Protection
         Agency
           Office of Emergency and
           Remedial Response
           Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/G-89/007
July 1989
Pre-Publication Copy
         Superfund
Guidance on Preparing
Superfund Decision
Documents:

The Proposed Plan
The Record of Decision
Explanation of Significant
  Differences
The Record of Decision
  Amendment

Interim Final

-------
       £         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
§ V^"^/ -
^-^MV- -'                     WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460

 V PRC^



                                 JUN 12




   MEMORANDUM

   SUBJECT:  Interim  Final  Guidance on  Preparing  Superfund Decision
             Documents  (OSWER  Directive 9355.3-02)
                                                         OFKICE OF
                                                SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FROM:   ./Jonathan Z.
      •^^cting Assistant Administr

TO:       Regional Administrators
          R«?gi
     I am pleased to transmit to you the Interim Final Guidance  on
Preparing Superfund Decision Documents, commonly known as  the
"ROD Guidance."  This document supersedes the original 1985
guidance on preparing Records of Decision (RODS) and  the March
1988 draft revised guidance that you have been  following during
the past year.

     The ROD Guidance establishes procedures and standardized
formats for four important remedial documents:  the Proposed Plan,
Record of Decision, Explanation of Significant  Differences, and
ROD Amendment.  These documents serve the legal function of
certifying that our decisions regarding remedy  proposal,
selection or modification have been carried out in accordance
with CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan.  These decision
documents also outline the technical parameters which form the
basis of remedial design.  In addition, our decision documents
also perform the vital function of communicating the  rationale
for Superfund remedy selection decisions to the public.  As
^•oituuunicacion tools, it is therefore essential  that these
documents are logical, complete, and clear.  In order to promote
consistency in our remedies and better public understanding of
these documents and consistency in presentation, I urge you to
adhere to the formats and approaches contained  in the guidance.

     In addition to establishing requirements for the necessary
contents and format for remedial decision documents,  this guidance
specifies the roles and responsibilities of EPA, the  States, and
other Federal agencies in developing and issuing Superfund
decision documents.  The ROD Guidance also establishes procedures
for implementing CERCLA sections 117 (b) and (d) to document
significant changes made during the remedy selection process.

-------
     Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this
guidance you should contact Sandra Panetta (FTS 475-9757)  or
Betsy Shaw (FTS 382-4635)  in the Site Policy and Guidance Branch
(OERR).

Attachment


cc:  Directors, Waste Management Division, Regions I, IV,  V, VI,
       VIII
     Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Reg. II
     Directors, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Regions III,
       VII, IX
     Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Region X

-------
                                  EPA/540/G-89/007
                                     July 1989
                                Pre-Publication Copy
  Guidance on Preparing Superfund
        Decision Documents:

          The Proposed Plan
        The Record of Decision
Explanation of Significant Differences
 The Record of Decision Amendment
             Interim Final
        Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
             Washington, DC 20460

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     -11-
                                    Notice
     Development of this document was funded by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency in part under contract No. 68-W8-0098 to CH2M
HILL SOUTHEAST.   It has been subjected to the Agency's review process and
approved for publication as an EPA document.

     The policies and'procedures set out in this document are intended solely
for the guidance of response personnel.  They are not intended,  nor can they
be relied upon,  to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable
by any party in  litigation with the United States.  The Agency reserves the
right to act at  variance with these policies and procedures and  to change them
at any time without public notice.

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                    -m-
                                  Foreword
     This Interim Final  Guidance on Preparing  Superfund  Decision  Documents was
issued in order to improve the quality and completeness  of Records  of  Decision
and related documents.   This guidance  benefited  from a review of  past
Superfund Records of Decision and defines  important  items  to  be addressed  in
documenting site remediation decisions.

     This guidance does  not cover the  selection  of remedy  process itself.
This will be the subject of a separate guidance  that will  be  developed in
concert with the final National  Contingency Plan rulemaking.

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                             Acknowledgments
     This document was developed by EPA's Office  of Emergency  and  Remedial
Response (OERR) in conjunction with the Record of Decision  (ROD) Workgroup  and
with assistance provided by ICF Incorporated.   Darsi  Foss was  the  EPA project
manager and co-chairperson of the ROD Workgroup along with  Mary A.  Gade,
Associate Division Director,  Office of Superfund, EPA Region V. The  ICF
project team included Gerald  DiCerbo, Alice Whitfield,  and  Georgeann  Morekas.

     The ROD Workgroup contributed significantly  to the development of this
document and included the following Regional,  State,  and Headquarters
personnel:


     Jeremy Firestone, Region I
     Bill Walsh-Rogalski, Region I
     Robert McKnight, Region  II
     Beverly Houston, Region  IV
     Larry Kyte, Region V
     Joan Tanaka, Region V
     Mary Tyson, Region V
     Laura demons, Region VIII
     John Blevins, Region IX
     Gary Pulford, Minnesota  Pollution Control Agency
     Bob Chapin, Texas Water  Commission
     Ed Putnam, New Jersey Department of Environmental  Protection
     Elizabeth Shaw, OERR
     Sylvia Malm, OERR
     Vanessa Musgrave, OERR
     Deborah Lebow, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE)
     Tony Diecidue, OWPE
     Ellen Spitalnik, Office  of Enforcement and Compliance  Monitoring
     Joe Freedman, Office of General Counsel
     Steve Nicholas, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation

-------
                                                     OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                     -v-
                             Table of Contents
                                                                         Page

Acknowledgements 	    iv

Acronyms Used in this Guidance	    xiv

CHAPTER 1   INTRODUCTION 	    1-1

      1.1   Purpose of this Guidance	    1-1

      1.2   Overview of the Superfund Remedial  Process 	    1-2

            1.2.1   The Pre-Remedial Stage	    1-4
            1.2.2   Determination of Lead and Support Agencies  ....    1-4
            1.2.3   Potentially Responsible Party(ies) (PRPs)	    1-5
            1.2.4   Remedial  Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)  .    1-6
            1.2.5   Preferred Alternative	    1-7
            1.2.6   Proposed Plan	    1-8
            1.2.7   Record of Decision (ROD)	    1-8
            1.2.8   Remedial  Design (RD)	    1-8
            1.2.9   Remedial  Action (RA)	    1-10

      1.3   Outline of this Guidance	    1-10

CHAPTER 2   THE PROPOSED PLAN	    2-1

      2.1   Purpose of the Proposed Plan	    2-1

            2.1.1   Statutory Requirements 	    2-2

      2.2   Writing the Proposed Plan	    2-4

      2.3   Section-by-Section Description of the Proposed Plan.  .  .  .    2-7

            2.3.1   Introduction	    2-7
            2.3.2   Site Background	    2-8
            2.3.3   Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action    2-8
            2.3.4   Summary of Site Risks	    2-9
            2.3.5   Summary of Alternatives	    2-10
            2.3.6   The Evaluation of Alternatives	    2-10
            2.3.7   Community Participation	    2-14

      2.4   Formats for the Proposed Plan	    2-15

            2.4.1   Fact Sheet Format	    2-15
            2.4.2   Expanded Format	    2-16

-------
                                                     OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                     -vi-
                      Tabie of Contents (continued)
                                                                        Page
CHAPTER 3   THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING  THE  PROPOSED  PLAN	   3-1
      3.1   Overview	   3-1
            3.1.1    Preparing  the  Proposed  Plan	   3-1
      3.2   Roles  and Responsibilities  of the  Lead Agency  and
            Support  Agency 	   3-3
            3.2.1    Designation  of Roles and Responsibilities	   3-3
            3.2.2    Lead and Support  Agency Responsibilities  	   3-4
            3.2.3    Management Review of the Proposed  Plan	   3-5
            3.2.4    Support Agency Comment  Period	   3-6
      3.3   Procedures for Resolving  Disputes	   3-7
      3.4   Role of  Other Federal  Agencies	   3-8
      3.5   Role of  Potentially  Responsible Parties	   3-9
CHAPTER 4   THE NEWSPAPER NOTIFICATION  OF AVAILABILITY OF
            THE PROPOSED PLAN  AND  THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD	   4-1
      4.1   Statutory Requirements 	   4-1
      4.2   Writing  the Newspaper  Notification  	   4-2
            4.2.1    Section-by-Section  Description of  the
                    Newspaper  Notification  	   4-2
      4.3   Public Comment Period	   4-4
CHAPTER 5   PRE-ROD  SIGNIFICANT  CHANGES	   5-1
      5.1   Overview	   5-1
      5.2   Requirement to Address Changes  	   5-2
      5.3   Identifying Categories of Changes	   5-2
            5.3.1    Minor Changes	   5-3
            5.3.2    Significant  Changes	   5-3

-------
                                                    OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                    -VTI-


                      Table of Contents (continued)


                                                                         Page

      5.4   Criteria for Analyzing  Significant  Changes  	    5-5

            5.4.1    Significant Changes  that  may  be  Considered
                    Logical  Outgrowths of the Information  Available
                    to the Public	    5-5
            5.4.2    Significant Changes  that  may  not be Considered
                    Logical  Outgrowths of the Information  Available
                    to the Public	    5-7

      5.5   Examples of Pre-ROD Changes	    5-8

            5.5.1    Minor Change	    5-9
            5,5.2    Significant Change Requiring  Documentation
                    in the ROD	    5-9
            5.5.3    Significant Change Necessitating the  Issuance of
                    a New Proposed  Plan,  of a New Public  Comment
                    Period,  and their Documentation  in  the ROD  ....    5-10

CHAPTER 6   WRITING THE RECORD OF DECISION 	    6-1

      6.1   Introduction	    6-1

            6.1.1    Purpose  of the  Record of  Decision	    6-1
            6.1.2    Statutory Requirements to Issue  the
                    Record of Decision	    6-2
            6.1.3    Major Components of  the Record of Decision  ....    6-2

      6.2   Key Elements of  the Declaration	    6-3

            6.2.1    Site Name and Location	    6-6
            6.2.2    Statement of Basis and Purpose	    6-6
            6.2.3    Assessment of the Site	    6-6
            6.2.4    Description of  the Selected Remedy	    6-7
            6.2.5    Statutory Determinations  	    6-7
                    6.2.5.1   Sample Boilerplate Language  for
                             Making Statutory Determinations  	    6-8
            6.2.6    Signature and Support Agency  Acceptance of
                    the Remedy	    6-10

      6.3   Key Elements of  the Decision  Summary	    6-10

            6.3.1    Site Name,  Location,  and  Description	    6-11
            6.3.2    Site History and Enforcement  Activities	    6-12

-------
                                                     OSWER  Directive 9355.3-02
                                    -vm-
                      Table of Contents (continued)
                                                                         Page

            6.3.3   Highlights  of  Community  Participation	    6-12
            6.3.4   Scope  and  Role of Operable  Unit  or
                    Response Action	    6-13
            6.3.5   Summary of Site Characteristics	    6-14
            6.3.6   Summary of Site Risks	    6-15
                    6.3.6.1 Human Health  Risks	    6-15
                    6.3.6.2 Environmental Risks  	    6-19
            6.3.7   Description of Alternatives	    6-20
            6.3.8   Summary of the Comparative  Analysis  of
                    Alternatives 	    6-23
            6.3.9   The Selected Remedy	    6-25
            6.3.10  Statutory  Determinations 	    6-28
            6.3.11  Documentation  of Significant  Changes 	    6-33

      6.4   The Responsiveness Summary 	    6-34

      6.5   Submitting RODs to EPA Headquarters	    6-36

CHAPTER 7   THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE RECORD OF DECISION	    7-1

      7.1   Overview	    7-1

            7.1.1   State  Preparation of the ROD	    7-1
            7.1.2   Remedy Selection for State-Lead  Enforcement
                    Actions	    7-2
            7.1.3   Roles  and  Responsibilities  of Other  Federal
                    Agencies	    7-2

      7.2   Roles and Responsibilities of Lead  Agency and
            Support Agency 	    7-3

            7.2.1   Lead Agency	    7-3
            7.2.2   Support Agency	    7-5

      7.3   Dispute Resolution 	    7-6

      7.4   Role of State  and  Other EPA  Program Offices	    7-6

      7.5   Role of Potentially Responsible  Parties	    7-6

      7.6   Issuing Notice of  Availability of the ROD	    7-7

            7.6.1   Elements  of the ROD  Public  Notice	    7-7

-------
                                                    OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                     -IX-
                      Table of Contents (continued)
                                                                         Page
CHAPTER 8   POST-ROD SIGNIFICANT CHANGES  	    8-1
      8.1   Overview	    8-1
      8.2   Requirements to Address  Significant  Changes	    8-1
            8.2.1   Analyzing Information Received  or Generated.  .  .  .    8-2
      8.3   Consideration of Information  Submitted  by the Public,
            PRPs, and the Support Agency	    8-3
      8.4   Standards for Consideration of Information Submitted
            by the Public,  PRPs, or  Support Agency  	    8-4
      8.5   Consideration of Information  Generated  by the Lead
            Agency	    8-6
      8.6   Categories of Post-ROD Changes 	    8-7
            8.6.1   Non-Significant  Changes	    8-8
            8.6.2   Significant Changes to a Component of a Remedy .  .    8-10
                    8.6.2.1   Preparing the ESD	    8-14
            8.6.3   Fundamental Changes to the ROD	    8-16
CHAPTER 9   DOCUMENTING NO ACTION, INTERIM ACTION,  AND
            CONTINGENCY REMEDY DECISIONS  	    9-1
      9.1   Documenting a "No Action"  Decision 	    9-1
            9.1.1   No Action is Necessary to Achieve Protection
                    of Human Health  and the Environment	    9-2
            9.1.2   No CERCLA Authority to Take  Action	    9-3
            9.1.3   No Effective Action	    9-3
      9.2   Documenting Interim Action Decisions 	    9-11
      9.3   Decision Documents with  Contingency  Remedies 	    9-11
            9.3.1   Innovative Technologies	    9-15
            9.3.2   Comparable Technologies	    9-16
            9.3.3   Documenting Contingency Remedy  Decisions 	    9-17

-------
                                                     OSWER  Directive 9355.3-02
                                     -x-
                             List  of Appendices
Appendix A: Sample Proposed Plan

Appendix B: Worksheets for the Summary Comparative Analysis  of
            Alternatives

            •    Example of a Completed Comparative Analysis
                 Worksheet
            •    Worksheets for the Summary Comparative  Analysis
                 of Alternatives
            •    Summary of Evaluation Worksheet
Appendix C:
            •    Sample Description of an Alternative
            •    Sample Summary of Site Risks Table
Appendix D: Sample Selected Remedy and Statutory Determinations
            Discussion for the ROD

Appendix E: Helpful Hints:  How to Prepare and Submit Decision
            Documents to Headquarters

Appendix F: Sources of Information

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     -xi-
                              List of  Exhibits
Exhibit
Number                       Exhibit Title                               Page

1-1    Expectations for Superfund Remedial Actions	1-9

2-1    Outline for the Proposed Plan	2-5
2-2    The Nine Remedial  Evaluation Criteria	2-12
2-3    Hints for Preparing the Nine Criteria Analysis 	   2-13
2-4    Advantages and Disadvantages of the Fact Sheet Format	2-16
2-5    Advantages and Disadvantages of the Expanded Format	2-17

4-1    Sample Newspaper Notification of Availability of the
       Proposed Plan	4-3

6-1    Outline for the Record of Decision	6-4
6-2    Sample Declaration for the Record of Decision:
       Statutory Preference for Treatment as a Principal
       Element is Met and Five-Year Review is not Required	6-5
6-3    Sample Declaration for the Record of Decision:
       Statutory Preference for Treatment as a Principal
       Element is not Met and Five-Year Site Review
       is Required	6-9
6-4    Description of Details for Each Remedy	6-22
6-5    Federal ARARs that May Apply to Superfund Remedial Actions .  .  .   6-24
6-6    Example Cost Summary for the Selected Remedy	6-27
6-7    Examples of Federal and State ARAR Descriptions	6-30
6-8    Three Examples of Documentation of Significant Changes 	   6-35

7-1    Sample Newspaper Notification of Availability of the Record
       of Decision	7-9

8-1    Examples of a Non-Significant Difference 	   8-9

8-2    Examples of a Significant Difference to a Component of a
       Remedy	8-11
8-3    Outline for the Explanation of Significant Differences 	   8-15
8-4    Significant Change That Fundamentally Alters the Remedy
       Requiring Amendment of the ROD	8-17

9-1    Documenting a No Action Decision:  Action Not Necessary for
       Protection  Outline for the Proposed Plan	9-4
9-2    Documenting a No Action Decision:  Action Not Necessary for
       Protection  Outline for the ROD	9-5
9-3    Documenting a No Action Decision:  No CERCLA Authority to
       Take Action  Outline for the Proposed Plan	9-7

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                    -X11-
                        List  of Exhibits  (continued)
Exhibit
Number                          Exhibit Title                            Page

9-4    Documenting a No Action Decision:   No CERCLA Authority  to
       Take Action  Outline for the ROD	    9-8
9-5    Documenting a No Action Decision:   No Effective Action
       Possible  Outline for the Proposed Plan	    9-9
9-6    Documenting a No Action Decision:   No Effective Action
       Possible  Outline for the ROD	    9-10
9-7    Documenting Interim Action Decisions: Outline for the
       Proposed Plan	    9-12
9-8    Documenting Interim Action Decisions: Outline for the  ROD.  .  .    9-13
9-9    Documenting Contingency Remedy Decisions:   Outline for  the
       Proposed Plan	    9-19
9-10   Documenting Contingency Remedy Decisions:   Outline for
       the ROD	    9-20

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                    -xm-
                               List of Figures
Figure
Number                           Figure Title                            Page

1-1    The Remedial Process	   1-3

3-1    Preparation of the Proposed Plan by the Lead Agency	   3-2

5-1    Pre-ROD Changes	   5-4

6-1    Illustration of Components of Alternatives to be Described. .  .   6-21

7-1    Lead Agency Responsibility in ROD Development Process 	   7-4

8-1    Process to Address Post-ROD Significant Changes 	   8-5
8-2    Process That Results in the Issuance of an Explanation of
       Significant Differences:  General Procedures	   8-12
8-3    Process That Results in the Issuance of an Explanation of
       Significant Differences:  Changes Resulting From
       Enforcement Activities	   8-13
8-4    Process That Results in the Issuance of an Amended ROD:
       General Procedures	   8-19
8-5    Process That Results in the Issuance of an Amended ROD:
       Changes Resulting from Enforcement Activities 	   8-20

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                    -XIV-
                    Acronyms Used in this Guidance

AA      -  Assistant Administrator
ACL     -  Alternate Concentration Limit
ARAR    -  Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
BOAT    -  Best Demonstrated Available Treatment Technologies
CA      -  Cooperative Agreement
CAA     -  Clean Air Act
CERCLA  -  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
           Liability Act of 1980
CFR     -  Code of Federal Regulations
CWA     -  Clean Water Act
EP      -  Extraction Procedure
EPA     -  Environmental Protection Agency
ESD     -  Explanation of Significant Differences
FR      -  Federal Register
FS      -  Feasibility Study
HRS     -  Hazard Ranking System
IAG     -  Interagency Agreement
LDR     -  Land Disposal Restrictions
LSI     -  Listing Site Investigation
MCLs    -  Maximum Contaminant Levels
MEP     -  Maximum Extent Practicable
MPRSA   -  Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
NCP     -  National Contingency Plan
NPDES   -  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL     -  National Priorities List
OERR    -  Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
OSC     -  On-Scene Coordinator
OSWER   -  Office of Solid Waste and  Emergency Response
OU      -  Operable Unit
OWPE    -  Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
PA      -  Preliminary Assessment
POTW    -  Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
PRP     -  Potentially Responsible Party
RA      -  Regional Administrator
RCRA    -  Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act
RI      -  Remedial Investigation
RD/RA   -  Remedial Design/Remedial Action
ROD     -  Record of Decision
RPM     -  Remedial Project Manager
SARA    -  Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of  1986
SDWA    -  Safe Drinking  Water Act
SIP     -  State  Implementation Plan
SMOA    -  Superfund Memorandum of Agreement
SSC     -  State  Superfund Contract
SSI     -  Screening Site  Investigation
SWDA     -  Solid  Waste  Disposal Act
TBC      -  To  Be  Considered
TMV      -  Toxicity, Mobility,  or Volume
TSCA     -  Toxic  Substance Control Act

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                CHAPTER  1

                              INTRODUCTION
1.1  PURPOSE  OF THIS GUIDANCE

     This "Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents"  (commonly
referred to as the "ROD Guidance") has been developed to:   (1)  present
standard formats for documenting Superfund remedial action  decisions;  (2)
clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Environmental  Protection  Agency
(EPA), States, and other Federal agencies in developing  and issuing  decision
documents; and (3) explain how to address changes made to proposed and
selected remedies.  The decision documents addressed by  this guidance  are  the
Proposed Plan, the Record of Decision (ROD), the Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD), and the ROD amendment.1  Section 117 of  the  Comprehensive
Environmental  Response, Compensation, and Liability Act  of  1980 (CERCLA),  as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and  Reauthorization  Act of  1986  (SARA),
requires the issuance of these decision  documents for remedial  actions  taken
pursuant to sections 104, 106, 120, and  122.2  The proposed  National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) incorporates the requirements  and
provisions of SARA.3  This guidance has been prepared on the  basis of SARA  and
the existing NCP (1985) and is consistent with the proposed NCP.

     The first purpose of the ROD guidance is to standardize the  format of the
Proposed Plan, ROD, and other relevant decision documents.   Standardized
formats for these documents are necessary because the remedies  selected in the
Superfund program should be reviewed by  the public on a  national  as  well  as a
local level.  Standardizing these decision documents should:

     •    Provide consistency among Regions, with respect to the
          organization and content of decision documents;
     This guidance replaces the February 27, 1985, memorandum:  "Preparation of Decision Documents
for Approving Fund-Financed and Potentially Responsible Party Remedial Actions under CERCLA."
   p
     References made to CERCLA throughout this document should be interpreted as meaning
CERCLA, as amended by SARA.

   3 "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan" Proposed  Rule, (53 FR
51394), December 21, 1988.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     1-2

     •    Ensure that  all  statutory and  regulatory documentation
          requirements are met; and

     •    Promote clear and  logical presentations of rationales for
          remedy selection decisions based on site-specific
          information  and  supporting analysis.

     In addition to  the emphasis on providing a standard format to document
remedial  action decisions, this guidance specifies the roles and
responsibilities of  EPA, the States, and other Federal agencies in developing
and issuing Superfund  decision documents.  The emphasis on a larger State role
in the remedial process is contained in  CERCLA section 121(f)(l),  which
provides  "for substantial  and meaningful involvement of each State in the
initiation, development, and selection of remedial response actions to be
undertaken in that State."  In addition, because Executive Order 12580
("Superfund Implementation," January 23, 1987) delegates authority for certain
CERCLA activities to other Federal agencies, this guidance also discusses the
roles and responsibilities of these other agencies (e.g., the Departments of
Defense,  Energy, and the Interior) in the remedial process.

     Finally, this guidance  addresses the statutory requirement in CERCLA
sections  117(b) and  (d) to document significant changes made during the remedy
selection process.  For example, when significant changes are made to the
Proposed  Plan after  its publication, certain activities should be undertaken
to document these changes.  In the event that significant changes are made to
the selected remedy  after  the ROD  is signed, specific documentation and public
participation requirements should  be met.  Procedures to fulfill these
requirements are outlined  in this  guidance.
1.2  OVERVIEW OF THE SUPERFUND REMEDIAL PROCESS

     This section describes the  relationship between the decision documents
addressed in this guidance and the  overall Superfund remedial response
process.  Each stage of  the remedial  process is briefly summarized to show
the reader how the decision documents,  including the Proposed Plan and the
ROD, fit into the overall  Superfund remedial response process (see Figure 1-
1).

-------
        1-3
     FIGURE 1-1
The Remedial Process
Pre-Remedlaf :

- Preliminary Assessment
- Site Investigation
- MRS Evaluation
- NPL Listing
T
•^ 	
Remedial Investigation /Feasibility Study
-Scoping
Site Char " Devel°Pment
acterlzatlon a"d screening of 	
- Baseline alternatives *+ 	
Risk - Detailed Analysis
Assessment of Alternatives
- Treatablllty
Studies
T
::: Selection of Remedy ! •:',/.

Identification of
Preferred Alternative
i
Proposed Plan
T
Public Comment
f
Remedy Selection
i
T
Record of Decision {ROD)
i
I
t
^ 	
-^ 	
-^ 	
.' : '!: ' • ;-'• /: . POSt-ROD • V'"' '';;>''; ' • :'

- Remedial Design
- Remedial Action
- Operation and Maintenance
- Deletion from NPL
	 	
Preliminary identification of site
hazards and evaluation of the need !
for action under Superf und
remedial program
i
i
Gather information sufficient to
support an Informed risk
management decision regarding
which remedy appears to be the
most appropriate for a given site

Make Initial Identification of preferred
alternative based upon preliminary
balancing of tradeoffs among
alternatives using the nine criteria

Present preferred alternative:

Minimum 21 day public comment
period held on the Proposed Plan,
RI/FS, and other contents of
the Administrative Record file

Make final determination on remedy

Certify lhat the remedy complies
with CERCLA, outline the technical
goals of the remedy* provide background
Information on the site, summarize
the analysis of alternatives, and
explain the rationale for the remedy
selected
' 	 : 	 .... .. I

Design and construct remedy utilizing
i
Information contained In the ROD
and other relevant documents

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     1-4

     1.2.1  The Pre-Remedial Stage

     The Pre-Remedial  Stage encompasses  the  identification, investigation, and
listing of a site on the National  Priorities List  (NPL).  The pre-remedial
stage consists of a three-part process for determining whether hazards at a
site justify performing a CERCLA remedial action or whether the site can be
cleaned up under some authority other than CERCLA.  This process begins with a
Preliminary Assessment (PA),  during  which existing information on the site is
reviewed.  If the results of the PA  indicate that  further investigation is
warranted, either a Screening Site Investigation (SSI) or a Listing Site
Investigation (LSI) is conducted.  An LSI is performed to gather sufficient
information to "score" the site using the Hazard Ranking System (MRS).  The
HRS is a site evaluation methodology that EPA uses to estimate the relative
hazards posed by different sites.  Those sites that score above the HRS cut-
off score of 28.5 are eligible to  be placed  on the NPL.

     1.2.2  Determination  of Lead and Support  Agencies

     After a site is placed on the NPL,  interagency negotiations are initiated
to determine which  agency should act as  the  Lead Agency in the remedial
process and which as the Support Agency. These negotiations include EPA,
States, and other Federal Agencies.   The lead agency, which is represented by
the Remedial Project Manager (RPM),  has  the  primary responsibility for
coordinating a response action.  Either  EPA,  a State  environmental agency, or
another Federal  agency (e.g., the Department of Defense for cases of hazardous
waste sites on military bases) can serve as  the lead  agency.  The lead agency
RPM is responsible  for overseeing all technical, enforcement, and financial
aspects of a remedial  response.

   .  The support agency plays a review and concurrence role throughout the
remedial process.  When EPA or another Federal agency acts as the lead agency,
the State in which  the site is located usually serves as the support agency.
When the State is the lead agency, EPA usually serves as the support agency.

     When EPA and a State are involved  in  remedial activities, the lead and
support agencies are identified in a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement, a
Cooperative Agreement, or a State Superfund  Contract.  A Superfund Memorandum
of Agreement (SMOA) is a general agreement that specifies the nature and
extent of interaction between EPA and the  State for one or more sites.  A
Cooperative Agreement (CA) is a site-specific agreement that establishes

-------
                                                       OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                       1-5

Federal and State  responsibilities for a specific  CERCLA response action.4  A
State Superfund  Contract (SSC) is an agreement  that  documents any required
cost shares and  assurances necessary from  a  State  but does not involve the
disbursement  of  Federal  monies.5

     A Federal agency other than EPA could also assume the roles and
responsibilities of the  lead agency.  These  responsibilities include
coordinating  and communicating with EPA  and  the State in their shared role  as
support agencies.   The division of authority and responsibility between  the
Federal agency as  lead and the support agencies, particularly in preparing  the
Proposed Plan and  the ROD, should be specified  in  an Interagency Agreement
(IAG).  This  agreement should be reached by  considering the process and
activities outlined in this guidance, the  CERCLA requirements, and the
proposed revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP).   Federal agencies  conducting response actions are
expected to comply with  this and other Agency guidance, as specified  in  CERCLA
section 120.

     1.2.3   Potentially Responsible  Party(ies) (PRPs)

     Under CERCLA  section 104, an individual  or company identified as
potentially liable for a release of hazardous substances into the environment,
a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP), may also conduct CERCLA response
actions, if that party is qualified and  otherwise  capable.  For a PRP-prepared
response action, either  EPA or the State is  the lead agency for overseeing  the
PRP's work and for developing the Proposed Plan and  the ROD.  PRPs may
participate in the remedy selection process  by  recommending their own
preferred alternative to the lead agency at  the conclusion of the feasibility
study and by  submitting  comments on the  Proposed Plan and other information in
the administrative record during the formal  public comment period that  is  held
before the final selection of a remedy for a site.
     With a CA, EPA establishes an account to enable the State to use Trust Fund monies to finance
response actions.

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

-------
                                                     OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                     1-6

     1.2.4  Remedial  Investigation/Feasibility  Study (Rl/FS)

     Once a site is listed on the NPL and  a lead  agency  has  been  identified,
the lead agency performs a Remedial  Investigation and  Feasibility Study
(Rl/FS).  During an Rl/FS, the lead  agency gathers  information  sufficient to
support an informed risk management  decision regarding which  remedy  appears to
be most appropriate for a given site or an operable unit within a site.
Operable Units (OUs) are discrete parts of an entire response action.  An OU
can be defined as a certain geographic  portion of a site or  an  environmental
medium at the site (e.g., alternative water supply,  source control measures,
mitigation of contamination in off-site areas, or ground-water  remediation).
Operable units may also be comprehensive but temporary remedies (e.g.,
temporary caps across a site) that can  provide interim protection of human
health and the environment prior to  final  remediation.

     The RI and the FS are usually conducted concurrently, in an  interactive,
iterative manner.  The data collected during the  RI are  used  to develop
remedial alternatives in the FS, and the alternatives  identified  in  the  FS
determine the necessity of treatability studies or  the collection of
additional data in the RI.  In general, the RI consists  of:

     •    Collecting data to characterize  site conditions;

     •    Determining the nature and extent of contamination  at the
          site or operable unit;

     •    Assessing risks to human health  and the environment;  and

     •    Conducting treatability testing  to evaluate  the potential
          performance and cost of the treatment technologies  that
          are being considered for the  site.

     In characterizing the site, the lead  agency  identifies  the source  of
contamination, potential routes of migration, and current and potential  human
and environmental receptors.  The baseline risk assessment conducted during
the RI identifies the contaminants of concern and exposure and  toxicity
information that are used to determine  the risks  posed by the conditions at
the site to human health and the environment.  Treatability  studies  are  bench,
pilot, or full-scale tests of a particular technology  on samples  of  actual

-------
                                                         OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                        1-7

site wastes.   Such studies are conducted  to identify  which technologies are
suitable  for addressing  the waste to be  treated.

     The  FS involves the identification  and detailed  evaluation of  potential
remedial  alternatives.   This process begins with the  formulation of viable
alternatives,  which involves defining  remedial action objectives, general
response  actions, volumes or area of media to be addressed, and potentially
applicable technologies.   The alternatives should be  screened, as appropriate,
down to a reasonable number that undergo  a detailed analysis using  the nine
evaluation criteria (for a discussion  of  this analysis,  see Chapter 6).  The
analysis  profiles individual alternatives against the criteria and  compares
them with each other to  gauge their relative performance against each factor.
Each alternative, with the exception of  the required  no  action alternative, is
designed  and continually refined to ensure that it should be protective of
human  health and the environment and that it should be compliant with its
respective Applicable or Relevant and  Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).6

     1.2.5  Preferred Alternative

     The  lead  agency identifies a Preferred Alternative  prior to holding a
formal public  comment period on the proposed cleanup  for a site.  The detailed
analysis  provides the lead and support agencies with  sufficient information to
identify  a preferred alternative.  The preferred alternative is identified as
the protective, ARAR-compliant approach  that is judged to provide the best
balance of tradeoffs with respect to the  five primary balancing criteria.
This evaluation should also consider State (support agency) and community
acceptance of  each alternative, when that information is available.  The
preferred alternative and, ultimately, the selected remedy should be chosen
considering the Superfund program's "expectations."   These are presented in
Exhibit 1-1.
     ARARs include any Federal or State standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations that are
determined to be legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to a CERCLA site or action.  These
requirements may include regulations promulgated under the Solid  Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Clean Water Act
(CWA), and other Federal environmental statutes or State laws. Applicable requirements are those
cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements,
criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law that specifically address a hazardous
substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstances at a CERCLA site.
Relevant and appropriate requirements are requirements that, while not "applicable" to circumstances at a
CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA
site whose use is well suited for that particular site.  Additional guidance on ARARs is provided in the
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual. Draft (OSWER Directive 9234.1-01, August 1988).

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     1-8
     1.2.6  Proposed  Plan

     The preferred  alternative for a site is presented to the public in a
Proposed Plan.   The Proposed Plan provides a brief summary of all of the
alternatives studied in   the detailed analysis phase of the RI/FS,
highlighting the key factors that led to the identification of the preferred
alternative.  The Proposed  Plan  is made available for public comment, in
addition to the RI/FS and the other information, in the administrative record.

     1.2.7  Record of Decision (ROD)

     Following receipt of public comments and any final comments from the
support agency, a remedy is selected and documented in a ROD.  The ROD, which
documents the remedial action plan for a site or operable unit, serves three
basic functions:

     •    It certifies that the  remedy selection process was carried
          out in accordance with CERCLA and, to the extent
          practicable, with the  NCP;

     •    It describes the  technical parameters of the remedy,
          specifying the treatment, engineering, and institutional
          components, as well as remediation goals; and

     •    It provides the public with a consolidated source of
          information about the  site and the chosen remedy,
          including the  rationale behind the selection.

     1.2.8  Remedial  Design (RD)

     The ROD provides the framework for the transition into the next phase of
the remedial process, Remedial  Design  (RD).  Remedial Design  is an engineering
phase during which technical drawings and specifications are developed for the
subsequent Remedial Action. These  specifications are based upon  the detailed
description of the remedy and the cleanup criteria provided in the ROD.

-------
                                                                   OSWER  Directive 9355.3-02
                                                1-9
                                         EXHIBIT  1-1

                 Expectations for Superfund Remedial Actions
      The following expectations guide the decisionmaker in determining what method (or combination of
methods of protection) is appropriate for a particular site or operable unit.

«     The objective of the Superfund program is to select  remedies that provide reliable,  effective
      protection over the long term.  To meet this objective, remedies should either reduce all
      wastes to health-based levels or manage contaminants to such an extent that there is a high
      degree of certainty that future exposures will not harm human health or the environment.

«     Treatment is the preferred means by which to address the principal threats  posed by a site,
      wherever practicable. Principal threats are characterized as areas  contaminated with high
      concentrations of toxic compounds, liquids, and other highly mobile materials.  Principal
      threats may include contaminated media (e.g., contaminated ground water, sediments, or
      soil) that pose significant risk of exposure.

«     The most appropriate remedy for a specific site frequently will be a  combination of
      treatment and containment.

•     Containment is more likely to be appropriate for low concentrations of materials and
      immobile wastes that do not pose substantial long-term threats, for example:

      -    Wastes of which the contaminants are near health-based levels Or that are
            substantially immobile or can otherwise can be reliably contained over long
            periods of time;

      "    Wastes that are technically difficult to treat, such as mixed wastes of widely
            varying composition or wastes dispersed over  extraordinarily large sites, such as
            municipal landfills or  mining sites, where treatment is impracticable; and

            Wastes with characteristics such that a treatment-based remedy would increase
            overall risk to human health and the environment due to risks posed to
            workers, the  community, or the environment during implementation.

*     Ground waters will  be returned to their beneficial uses within a reasonable period  of time,
      wherever practicable.

•     Institutional controls (e.g., deed restrictions, prohibitions of well construction) are important
      in controlling exposures during remedial action implementation and as supplements to long-
      term engineering controls. Institutional controls alone should not  substitute for more active
      measures (treatment or containment) unless such active measures  are found to be
      impracticable.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     1-10

     1.2.9  Remedial Action (RA)

     After completion  of  the RD> the  Remedial Action (RA) begins, during which
the actual construction of  the remedy, or implementation phase of site
cleanup,  occurs.   When all  phases  of  remedial activity at a site have been
completed and  no  further  remedial  action is warranted, the site can be deleted
from the  NPL.   Completed  cleanup results should be compared with the terms in
the ROD to determine whether remediation goals have been fulfilled such that
the site  should be deleted  from the NPL.
1.3  OUTLINE OF THIS GUIDANCE

     While this  guidance  addresses only the preparation of Superfund decision
documents, other guidance documents that address other stages of the remedial
process are also available.  Because preparation of the Proposed Plan and ROD
relies to a great  extent  on  the  information collected and analyzed during the
RI/FS process,  the Guidance  for  Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (OSWER Directive 9355.3-01, October 1988) is
of particular importance.  The ROD guidance and RI/FS guidance are
interrelated documents  that  should be used when conducting remedial actions
pursuant to CERCLA sections  104,  106, 120, and 122.  Many portions of Proposed
Plans and RODs  contain  summaries of information that should have been
generated during the RI/FS.  Additional sources of information on the remedy
selection process  and other  stages of the remedial process are listed in
Appendix F of this guidance.

     The chapters  included in this guidance address the following different
aspects of the  Superfund  remedy  selection process that require specific
documentation:

     •    Chapter  2 presents the purpose of and the statutory
          requirements  for the Proposed Plan and provides guidelines
          for issuing the Plan;

     •    Chapter  3 summarizes the roles and responsibilities of
          lead  and support agencies in developing the Proposed Plan;

-------
                                           OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                           1-11

Chapter 4 summarizes requirements for the newspaper
notification of availability of the Proposed Plan and
discusses the public comment period;

Chapter 5 describes the general framework for categorizing
minor and significant changes made to the preferred
alternative before issuance of the ROD and discusses
documentation and public information activities that may
be necessary;

Chapter 6 presents the standard format for the ROD and
discusses key elements to be included in each section;

Chapter 7 summarizes the roles and responsibilities of
lead and support agencies in developing the ROD;

Chapter 8 discusses the standards and procedures to follow
when Post-ROD significant changes occur; and

Chapter 9 examines the three types of remedial decisions
(no action, interim action, and contingency remedy
decisions) that should include modifications to the
standard ROD and Proposed Plan format.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                CHAPTER 2

                         THE PROPOSED PLAN
     This chapter presents the purpose of the Proposed Plan and the  statutory
requirements for issuing the  Plan pursuant to CERCLA sections 104,  106,  120,
and 122.  In addition,  this chapter provides a suggested outline and format
for writing the Proposed Plan.1

2.1  PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PLAN

     The purpose of  the Proposed Plan is to facilitate public participation  in
the remedy selection process  by:

     •     Identifying the preferred alternative for a remedial
          action at  a site or operable unit and explaining the
          reasons for the preference;

     •     Describing other remedial options that were considered in
          detail  in  the RI/FS report;

     •     Soliciting public review and comment on all the
          alternatives  described; and

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

     The Proposed Plan  is a public participation document and is expected  to
be widely read.   The Proposed Plan, therefore, should be written in  a clear
and concise manner using non-technical language.  In addition,  the  Proposed
Plan should direct the  public to the RI/FS report as the primary source  of
detailed information on the remedial alternatives analyzed, as well  as other
site-specific information.

     The Proposed Plan  should present the lead agency's preliminary
recommendation concerning how best to undertake a cleanup action at  the  site
     Chapter 9 should be consulted when preparing Proposed Plans for no action, interim action, and
contingency remedy decisions.

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     2-2

but should not select the final  remedial  action for a site or operable unit.
The Proposed Plan should make clear that  the lead agency has "identified" a
preferred alternative based on available  information, but has not "selected"  a
remedy to implement.  The Proposed Plan supports only preliminary decisions
for a site and should include observations and tentative recommendations.  The
Proposed Plan should not make definitive  findings or declarative statements
that would be difficult to revise later.

     In emphasizing that the preferred  alternative is only an initial
recommendation, the Proposed Plan should  clearly state that changes to the
preferred alternative, or a change from the preferred alternative to another
alternative, may be made if public comments or additional data indicate that
such a change would result in a more appropriate solution.  The final  decision
regarding the selected remedy should be documented in the ROD after the lead
agency has taken into consideration all comments from both the support agency
and the public.  An important function  of the Proposed Plan is to solicit
public comment on all of the alternatives considered in the detailed analysis
phase of the RI/FS because the lead and support agencies may select a remedy
other than the preferred alternative.

     2.1.1   Statutory  Requirements

     Three separate statutory requirements in CERCLA provide the basic
framework in the Proposed Plan and the  process for developing this document.
These are CERCLA sections 113(k)(2)(B), 117(a), and 121(f)(l)(6).

     Section 113(k)(2)(B) establishes the minimum procedures for public
involvement  in selecting a response action.  The specific procedures for the
Proposed Plan are to provide:

     •    A  notice to potentially affected persons and the public, which
          shall be accompanied by a brief analysis of the [proposed]2
          plan and alternative plans that were considered; and

     •    A  reasonable opportunity to comment and provide
          information regarding the  [proposed] plan.
              ]  Denotes paraphrase.

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                      2-3

     Section 117(a) establishes the baseline public participation requirements
for remedial activities.  The subsections relating to the Proposed Plan
require that the lead agency:

     •   .(-1) -Publish a notice and brief analysis of the proposed plan
          and make such plan available to the public;

     •    (2) Provide a reasonable opportunity for submission of
          written and oral comments and an opportunity for a public
          meeting at or near the facility at issue regarding the
          proposed plan and regarding any proposed findings under
          section 121(d)(4) (relating to cleanup standards) [e.g.,
          waivers].  The [lead agency] shall keep a transcript of
          the meeting and make such transcript available to the
          public; and

     •    [Include in] the notice and analysis published under
          paragraph (1) ... sufficient information ... as may be
          necessary to provide a reasonable explanation of the
          proposed plan and alternative proposals considered [in the
          RI/FS report].

     Section 121ff)(l)fG) specifies the minimum involvement EPA should afford
the State in the remedial decision process.  The requirements specific to the
Proposed Plan are to provide:

     •    [a] Notice to the State and an opportunity to comment on
          the proposed plan for remedial action as well as on
          alternative plans under consideration.  The [EPA's]
          proposed decision regarding the selection of remedial
          action shall be accompanied by a response to the comments
          submitted by the State including an explanation regarding
          any decision on compliance with promulgated State
          standards.  A copy of such response shall also be provided
          to the State.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     2-4

2.2  WRITING THE PROPOSED PLAN

     The Proposed  Plan  summarizes essential information from the RI/FS report.
At a minimum,  the  Plan  should:

     •    Summarize  the environmental conditions at the site as
          determined during the RI;

     •    Describe the  remedial alternatives evaluated in sufficient
          detail to  provide a reasonable explanation of each
          alternative;

     •    Identify the  lead agency's preferred alternative;

     •    Provide  a  general summary of the support agency comments,
          if available  (e.g., concurrence, nonconcurrence, or no
          comments at present time) and the lead agency's response
          to the comments;

     •    Identify and  provide a summary explanation of any proposed
          waivers  to the ARARs in CERCLA section 121(d)(4); and

     •    Provide  a  brief  analysis  that supports the preferred
          alternative,  discussed in terms of the nine evaluation
          criteria.

     Exhibit 2-1 provides  a recommended outline of the Proposed Plan.  This
outline contains elements  that are  both specifically required by CERCLA and
others that are recommended for inclusion.  Variations may be made as
appropriate.

     The following subsections provide more specific guidance on the key
elements of the Plan.  Chapter 9 provides additional guidance on modifications
to the Proposed Plan when  the Plan  calls for no action, interim action, or a
contingency remedy.   A  sample Proposed Plan is presented  in Appendix A of this
Guidance for a hypothetical Superfund site.

-------
                                                                  OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                               2-5
                                        EXHIBIT  2-1

                            Outline for the Proposed  Plan
Introduction

    •   Provide site name and location.
    *   Identify lead and support agencies.
    •   Introduce document's purpose, which is to:
           fulfill requirements of section H7(a);
           describe alternatives analyzed;
           identify preferred alternative and explain rationale for preference;
           serve as companion to the RI/FS and administrative record file; and
           solicit public involvement in selection of a remedy.
    »   Stress importance of public input on all alternatives.

Site Background

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

Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action

    •   Describe scope of problem that the action will address.
    •   Describe role of action within site strategy.
    »   Identify how action addresses principal threat(s).

Summary of Site Risks

    •   Provide overview of baseline risk assessment, by describing the:
           contaminated media;
           chemicals of concern;
           baseline exposure scenarios (e.g., routes of exposure - current and future land-use
           scenarios); and
           current and  potential site risks (including both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
           threats).
    •   Discuss ecological risk(s), as appropriate.

Summary of Alternatives

    •   Provide narrative description  of alternatives evaluated in detailed analysis of FS (including
        engineering components,  treatment components, estimated present-worth cost, implementation
        time, and the major ARARs  associated with the alternative(s)).

-------
                                                                 OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                               2-6
                               EXHIBIT 2-1 (continued)

                            Outline for the Proposed Plan
Evaluation of Alternatives and The Preferred Alternative

      »     Identify the preferred alternative
      *     Introduce the nine evaluation criteria and discuss how they are utilized in the
            Superfund program.
      •     Provide the rationale for the preferred alternative by profiling it against the
            nine criteria and highlighting how it compares to the other alternatives (major
            advantages and disadvantages).  State/support agency and community
            acceptance should be addressed to the extent adequate information is available
            at the time.
      •     Discuss the lead agency's belief that the preferred alternative would satisfy the
            statutory findings, including the preference for treatment as a  principal
            element.
      •     When the support agency concurs with the preferred alternative, its
            recommendation that the alternative meets the statutory findings also should be
            included.

Community Participation41

      •     Provide notice of public comment period (written comments are encouraged).
      •     Note time and place for a public meeting(s) {if they are scheduled) or offer
            opportunity for meeting.
      •     Provide the location of administrative record files and information repositories.


*     Community includes the general public and PRPs.

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                      2-7

2.3  SECTION-BY-SECTION  DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED
     PLAN

     2.3.1   Introduction

     This introductory section should include the site name  and  location,  and
identify the lead and support agencies for the  remedial action.  The
introduction should state that the Proposed Plan is a document that the  lead
agency is required to issue to fulfill CERCLA section 117(a).

     The public should be informed of the function of the  Proposed Plan  in the
remedy selection process, specifically, that its fourfold  purpose  is  to:

     •    Identify the preferred alternative for remedial  action at
          a site or operable unit and explain the reasons  for the
          preference;

     •    Describe the other remedial options considered  in  detail
          in the RI/FS report;

     •    Solicit public review of and comment  on all the
          alternatives described; and

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

     A clear statement should be made that the  Proposed Plan highlights  key
information from the RI/FS report but is not a  substitute  for that document.
The Plan should refer the reader to the RI/FS report and  administrative  record
file(s) as more complete sources of information regarding  the remedial
action.3  The first section of the Proposed Plan should stress that public
input on all alternatives, and on the information that supports  the
alternatives, is an important contribution to the remedy  selection process.
The public should be encouraged to submit comments and should be informed  that
their comments can influence the lead agency's  preference.   The  point should
   3 Subpart I of the proposed revisions to the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300) and the
Interim Guidance on Administrative Records for Selection of CERCLA Response Actions (OSWER
Directive 9833.3A, March 1989) provide detailed information on developing, maintaining, and providing
access to the Administrative Record for the selection of the CERCLA response action.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     2-8

be made that the final  remedial  action  plan,  as  presented  in the ROD, could be
different from the preferred  alternative,  depending upon new information or
arguments the lead agency may consider  as  a result of public comments.

     2.3.2  Site  Background

     The site background  should  include a  site map and a brief description of
the site, including the history  of waste generation or disposal that has taken
place there, the major  contaminants of  concern,  the contaminated media, and
the extent of contamination.

     2.3.3  Scope and Role of  Operable Unit or Response  Action

     This section of the  Proposed  Plan  should summarize the lead agency's
overall strategy for remediating the site  and describe how the action being
considered in the Proposed Plan  fits into  that overall strategy.

     If the response is being carried out  in  operable units, the purpose of
each operable unit and  their  sequence should  be  described.  For example, the
following language could  be included in this  section.  "This is the  second of
three planned operable  units  for the site.  The  first operable unit  provided
the community with an alternate  water supply  to  prevent ingestion  of
contaminated ground water.   This operable  unit addresses remediation of the
contaminated ground water,  one of  the principal  threats posed  by the site.
The third and final operable  unit  addresses the  contaminated soil, which
represents the source of the  ground-water  contamination which  is the other
principal threat posed  by the site."

     As the above example illustrates,  the Proposed Plan's description of the
overall site strategy and the function  of  the proposed response action should
indicate how and through what action or series of actions  the  principal
threats posed by the site will be  addressed.   In general,  an environmental
medium or physical area is identified as a principal  threat when it  is
contaminated with high  concentrations of toxic compounds,  liquids, or  highly
mobile materials.  Each site at which a Superfund remedial action  is
undertaken has at least one,  and often  more  than one,  principal threat  (e.g.,
contaminated soil and drinking water).   This  section  of the Proposed Plan
should help establish the basis for the finding  made  in the ROD as to  whether
or not the selected remedy satisfies the preference  for using  treatment  as  a

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                      2-9

principal element which occurs when principal  threats are addressed through
treatment.

     2.3.4     Summary of  Site Risks

     This section of the Proposed Plan should  summarize the extent of
contamination at the site and the risks posed  to human health and the
environment using information developed during the RI.  The summary of site
risks should include key findings made in the  baseline risk assessment
conducted as part of the RI.  This discussion  should:

     •    Identify contaminated media;

     •    Identify contaminants of concern;

     •    Describe exposure pathways (e.g., routes of exposure -
          ground water, surface water, air, and soil);

     •    Describe the potentially exposed population;

     •    Discuss environmental risks as appropriate (ecological
          receptors, potential exposures, and  potential effects of
          exposures); and

     •    Describe how current risks compare to remediation goals
          (e.g., current carcinogenic risks of 10~2 will  be reduced
          to 1CT6).
     The description of site risks should not rely solely on standard numeric
risk representations (such as cancer risks of 10~3 or a hazard quotient value
of 22).  These risk numbers should be accompanied by a discussion that
explains, for example,  that a cancer risk level  of 10"3 means that one
additional person out of a thousand is at risk of developing cancer if the
site is not cleaned up.  Similarly, for noncarcinogenic effects,  the
discussion of the hazard quotient and hazard index should state that a hazard
quotient (the ratio of the level of exposure to an acceptable level) greater
than 1.0 indicates that the exposure level exceeds the protective level  for
that particular chemical.   If the hazard quotients for individual chemicals
are less than 1.0 but the  sum of the hazard quotients for all substances  in an

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     2-10

exposure medium (i.e.,  the hazard index)  is  greater  than  1.0, then there may
be a concern for potential health effects.

     In addition,  for proposed remedies other than  "no  action," this section
of the Proposed Plan should-conclude with  the following statement.

          Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
          this site, if not addressed by the preferred  alternative
          or one of the other active measures considered, may
          present a current or potential  threat to  public health,
          welfare, or the environment.

     2.3.5  Summary of Alternatives

     The Summary of Alternatives section should provide a brief narrative  of
the alternatives studied in the detailed analysis phase of  the RI/FS report.
This description should specify the treatment technology(ies), engineering
controls, institutional controls, quantities of waste handled, implementation
requirements, the estimated construction and operation  and  maintenance  costs,
and the estimated implementation time frame associated  with each  remedy.

     These descriptions also should incorporate the major ARARs associated
with each option.  For example, ARARs associated with a source control  remedy,
such as RCRA Subtitle C or D closure standards, should  be incorporated  into
the discussion, as appropriate.  For treatment-based alternatives,  the  ARARs
associated with treating hazardous substances (e.g., RCRA land disposal
restrictions, RCRA incineration standards in Subpart 0, Clean Air Act
Standards, etc.) also should be described.  The sample  Proposed  Plan  in
Appendix A of this Guidance provides examples of the level  of detail  for these
discussions.

     2.3.6   The  Evaluation of Alternatives

     This section should  begin by identifying the preferred alternative.
Next,  the nine  criteria used to evaluate the alternatives in the  detailed
analysis  in the FS should  be presented.  The nine criteria encompass  statutory
requirements  and  include  other technical, economic, and practical factors that
assist in gauging the  overall feasibility and acceptability of remedial
alternatives.

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     2-11

     The nine criteria are categorized into three groups:  threshold criteria,
primary balancing criteria, and modifying criteria.  The threshold criteria
must be satisfied in order for an alternative to be eligible for selection.
The primary balancing criteria are used to weigh major tradeoffs among
alternatives.  Generally, the modifying criteria are taken into account after
public comment is received on the Proposed Plan.  Exhibit 2-2 presents
information on the organization of the criteria and the major points that
should be addressed under each criterion.  Additional information on the nine
criteria and detailed analysis of alternatives are provided in the proposed
revisions to the NCP, and the Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations
and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (OSWER Directive 9355.3-01, October
1988).

     The Proposed Plan uses the nine criteria to profile the performance of
the preferred alternative, explaining the rationale for the preference by
briefly comparing the preferred alternative to the other alternatives under
each criterion.  For example, under the long-term effectiveness and permanence
criterion, the quantity of residuals the preferred alternative leaves on-site
and the reliability of the long-term management controls used should be stated
and compared with the other alternatives.  Additional information on the major
points to be addressed under each criterion are presented in Exhibits 2-2 and
2-3.

     The discussion in this section of the Proposed Plan should develop the
initial rationale for the preferred alternative; however, it need not provide
a comprehensive analysis of each alternative in relation to each of the nine
criteria nor should it make conclusive, binding statements about an
alternative.  For a more detailed explanation, the reader should be directed
to the comparative analysis contained in the RI/FS.  Appendix B includes some
sample worksheets that could be used during the preliminary stages in
preparing this section of the Proposed Plan.

     The conclusion of this section of the Proposed Plan should include a
summary by the lead Agency that says, based on information currently
available, the preferred alternative provides the best balance of tradeoffs
among the other alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.  This
section should include a statement summarizing the support agency's
concurrence or nonconcurrence of the preferred alternative and should note
that the lead agency expects that the preferred alternative satisfies the
statutory requirements in CERCLA section 121(b) that the selected alternative:

-------
                                                               (.- it-
                                                         EXHIBIT 2-2
                           The Nine Remedial  Evaluation  Criteria
• -\ ••';•;.:•}" • •• :
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Overall Protection I L
of Human Health 1
and the Environment 1
Compliance with
ARARs

                             ' How Alternative Provides Human
                              Health and Envtronmantal Protec-
                              tion
                                                     • Comptance wttti Chemical Spe-
                                                      cmcARAR*

                                                     • Compliance with Action-Specific
                                                      ARAR«

                                                     • Comptance wtth Location-Spe-
                                                      cWcARAR*

                                                     • Compliance wtth Other Criteria,
                                                      Advisories,   and   Outdances
                                                      (TBCa)
                                           PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
        Long-term
       Effectiveness
    And Permanence
 Reduction of Toxicity,
  Mobility, or Volume
  Through Treatment
   Short-Term
   Effectiveness
   Implementability
       Cost
  • Magnitude of Residual Risk

  • Adequacy and RcHaMltty of Con-
    trol*
• Treatment Process U»«d and Ma-
  terials Treated

• Amount of Hazardous Materials
  Destroyed or Treated

• Degree of Expected Reduction* In
  Toxicity, MobMty, and Volume

• Degree to Which Treatment la Ir-
  reversfcle

• Type and  Quantity of Residuals
  Remaining After Treatment
• Protection of Community
  During Remedial Actions

• Protection of Workers Dur-
  ing Remedial Actions

• Environmental Impacts

• Time Urrti Remedial Action
  Objectives are Achieved
• Ability to Construct and Operate
  the Technology

• Reliability of the Technology

• Ease of  Undertaking Additional
  Remedial Actions, If Necessary

• AbNty to Monitor Effectiveness of
  Remedy

• AMHty to Obtain Approvals from
  Other Agencies

• Coordination wtth Other Agen-
  cies

• AvalabWty of Offsile Treatment,
  Storage, and Disposal Services
  and Capability

• Availably of Necessary Equip-
  ment and Specialists

• AvalabWty of Prospective Tech-
  nologies
• Capital Coats

• Operating  and  Mainte-
  nance Costs

• Present Worth Cost

MODIFYING CRITERIA
State1 I
Acceptance 1
Community1
Acceptance

                           • Features of the Alternative the State
                             Supports

                           • Feature* of the Alternative About
                             Which the State has Reservations

                           • Element* of the Alternative the Stale
                             Strongly Oppose*
                                                    • Features of the Alternative the Com-
                                                      munity Supports

                                                    • Features of the  Alternative  About
                                                      Which the Community has Reserva-
                                                      tton*

                                                    • Elements of the Alternative the Com-
                                                      munity Strongly Opposes
            'These criteria are assessed primarily following comment on the RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan.
S94106-1

-------
                                                              OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                           2-13
                                 EXHIBIT 2-3


            Hints  for  Preparing the Nine Criteria  Analysis



                              Overall  Protection

In every FS, a "no action" alternative is developed for comparative analysis purposes. In most cases, this
alternative should not be selected because it does not adequately protect human health and the
environment based on the risks posed by the site or media. In such cases, the no action alternative can
be ruled out for further consideration under the protectiveness criterion and  need not be discussed further
in the criteria analysis.

                          Compliance with  ARARs

For an alternative to pass the screening process and thus become eligible for selection, it must comply
with its ARARs or a waiver should be identified and the justification for invoking it provided.  An
alternative that  cannot comply with ARARs, or for which a waiver cannot be justified, should not be
presented in the Proposed Plan or ROD.

               Long-Term Effectiveness  and Permanence

In addressing the long-term effectiveness and permanence of an alternative, the terms "effectiveness" and
"permanence" should be used carefully.  Long-term effectiveness and permanence are viewed along a
continuum; an alternative can be described as offering a  greater or lesser degree of either long-term
effectiveness or permanence.

                                       Cost

The costs of remedies always should be qualified as estimates.

                    State/Support Agency Acceptance

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

                           Community Acceptance

Because information available on the community acceptance criterion may be limited prior to the public
comment period for the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS report, the Proposed  Plan should  indicate that this
factor will be evaluated in the ROD or, if appropriate, the Proposed Plan should provide a preliminary
summary based on available information.  Proposed Plans should not speculate on community acceptance
of the alternatives.

-------
                                                     OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                     2-14

     •    Be protective of human health and the environment;

     •    Comply with ARARs (or justify a waiver);

     •    Be cost-effective;

     •    Utilize permanent solutions and alternative  treatment  (or
          resource recovery) technologies to the maximum  extent
          practicable; and

     •    Satisfy the statutory preference for treatment  as  a
          principal element, or justify not meeting the preference.

2.3.7  Community Participation

     The public should be informed of the following:

     •    Dates of the public comment period (e.g., March 1-30);

     •    Date, time(s), and location(s) of the public meeting(s)  held
          pursuant to CERCLA section 117(a), (offer to hold  a  meeting
          upon request if one has not been scheduled);

     •    Location of information repositories and  administrative  record
          file(s), and hours of availability; and

     •    Names, phone numbers, and addresses of the lead and
          support agency personnel who will receive comments or
          supply additional information.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                    2-15

2.4  FORMATS FOR THE PROPOSED  PLAN

     There are two  basic  formats available to the lead agency for preparing
the Proposed Plan.   The first option is to issue the Proposed Plan in a fact
sheet format,  similar  to  the community relations fact sheets that
traditionally have  been issued by the Superfund program.

     The second option for  issuing the Proposed Plan is to prepare an
expanded, more detailed document that is similar to a draft ROD, yet less
lengthy and conclusive than a ROD.  This latter option is more of a "stand
alone" document because it  relies less on references to the RI/FS and other
documents in the administrative record file than does the briefer format.

     While the fact sheet format is expected to be effective for most Proposed
Plans, there may be specific site circumstances (e.g., complexity, public
controversy) that warrant use of the expanded format.  Regardless of the
format chosen, the  Proposed Plan should be written so that the information
presented can be readily  understood by the general public.  After the Proposed
Plan is issued, a copy should be sent to Headquarters as soon as possible.
Appendix E, "Helpful Hints: How to Prepare and Submit Decision Documents to
Headquarters," describes  the process for preparing and submitting the Proposed
Plan to Headquarters.   Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 summarize the advantages and
disadvantages associated  with the two alternative formats for the Proposed
Plan.

     2.4.1  Fact Sheet Format

     EPA and the States currently distribute fact sheets as part of the
community relations activities for a site.  Preparing the Proposed Plan in a
fact sheet format would fulfill the statutory requirements related to the
Plan.  Because the  Proposed Plan is issued to fulfill a statutory requirement,
the Plan may be organized differently or may discuss information not
traditionally contained in  community relations fact sheets.  Exhibit 2-4
discusses the advantages  and disadvantages of the fact sheet format.

-------
                                                        OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                       2-16
                                EXHIBIT 2-4

      Ad vantages, and Disadvantages of the Fact Sheet Format


                                  ADVANTAGES

    « The fact sheet is an established tool used to communicate information to the public.

    « Fact sheets can easily be distributed to the public.

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

    • Some Regions and States already use the fact sheet format to announce a preferred
      alternative.

                                 DISADVANTAGES

    • The format may not be appropriate if the lead agency determines that the circumstances of
      remedy selection at a particular site warrant a lengthier, detailed document that more
      thoroughly describes the  site conditions and the remedial alternatives.
     2.4.2  Expanded  Format

     The  lead  agency may determine  that the development of a more  detailed
document  is  the most appropriate option for the site  or operable unit.   In
many instances, this document may be similar to a  draft ROD.  The  use of an
expanded  format for the Proposed Plan is more likely  to occur when an in-depth
discussion of  the alternatives  in the RI/FS report is necessary  (e.g.,  if the
site is technically complex, involves a series of  operable units,  or is the
subject of enhanced public concern).  Documents following an expanded format
should include the same information specified in Exhibit 2-1, but  in greater
detail.   Exhibit 2-5 discusses  the  advantages and  disadvantages  of the
expanded  format.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                  2-17
                           EXHIBIT 2-5

Advantages  and. Disadvantages of the Expanded Format
                             ADVANTAGES

    A document with an expanded format can provide an in-depth discussion of the lead
    and support agencies' rationale for the initial preference of an alternative.

    The document may provide a more direct basis for the ROD.

                            DISADVANTAGES

    A lengthy discussion of the rationale may give the impression that a remedy has
    already been selected.

    Such a document could unintentionally divert attention from the RI/FS report.

    Such a document may not encourage public participation due to its length and degree
    of detail regarding the technical complexities of the site.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                CHAPTER 3

      THE PROCESS  FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPOSED PLAN

3.1  OVERVIEW

     This chapter summarizes  the  roles and  responsibilities of the lead and
support agencies in developing  the  Proposed Plan.  Agreement on the viable
alternatives  for a site  or  operable unit  is critical to the remedy selection
process.  Therefore,  personnel  in the lead  and  support agencies should begin
discussions on the alternatives analyzed  in the FS as early as possible.  As
the RI/FS progresses,  discussions between the lead and support agencies should
begin to focus on identification  of a preferred alternative.  These early
discussions should help  prevent delays in the later stages of the remedy
selection process.

     If PRPs  conduct the RI/FS,  the lead  agency should be informed of the
alternatives  developed,  screened, and analyzed  for the FS, because this
information constitutes  the basis for the selection of the response action.
Early discussions on remedy selection should help prevent delays in the later
stages of the remedial process.   The lead agency should ensure that the PRPs
and all support agencies are  well informed  of site activities by regularly
updating the  administrative record  file.1

     3.1.1   Preparing  the Proposed Plan

     The general steps in preparing the Proposed Plan for public comment are
summarized in Figure 3-1.  The  sequence in  which these steps are taken may
vary among Regions and States.

     The lead agency should begin drafting  the  Proposed Plan upon completion
of the RI/FS  report.   If a  PRP  prepares the RI/FS, then the Proposed Plan
should be drafted by the lead agency after  the  lead agency approves the RI/FS.
The RI/FS report should  be  sent to  the support  agency as soon as the report is
available, but no later  than  when the draft Proposed Plan is transmitted to
the support agency for review and comment.
     If a State has taken responsibility for an NPL site and is conducting the cleanup under the State's
own authority (i.e. a State-lead enforcement action), the State should keep EPA informed of the progress
at the site.

-------
                                3-2
                             FIGURE 3-1
       Preparation of the Proposed Plan by the Lead Agency
          Submits Draft
      RI/FS to Support Agency
       for Review & Comment
                              I Completes
                       RI/FS Report and Sends
                          Final Revision to
                          Support Agency
                 \
                       Management Briefed
                       on RI/FS and Proposed
                       Preferred Alternative
Note: framed boxes
denote statutory
requirements.
                           Prepares Draft
                           Proposed Plan
                                    Receives
                                     Support
                                    Agency's
                                   Comments
                       Decisionmaker Briefed
                          on Proposed Plan
                 J
                        Publishes Newspaper
                       Notice of Availability of
                       Proposed Plan and RI/FS
                                                Makes the
                                               the Proposed
                                        Plan and RI/FS Report
                                         Available to Public
  Holds Public
Comment Period

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                      3-3

     A preferred alternative  is  identified  tentatively on the  basis of  the
RI/FS report and ongoing discussions between  the  lead and support agencies.
To augment the regular flow of information  to management, a  formal briefing  on
the RI/FS and the preferred alternative  should  be made to management  at this
time.  After thrs~ meeting,-a  draft-Proposed Plan  is written  and  submitted to
the support agency and lead agency management for review and comment.   Other
intra-agency program offices  should complete  their review of the RI/FS  report
if they haven't already during this period.

     The lead agency should prepare the  final Proposed Plan  based on  the
comments from the support  agency and the results  of the internal program and
management review process.  This final version  should include  either  a  summary
of the support agency's agreement with the  Plan or its dissenting comments.
If the State is the lead agency  and EPA  does  not  concur with the Proposed
Plan, then EPA could assume lead responsibility for the Proposed Plan if a
resolution cannot be reached  (see Section 3.3 for more details).  Finally, the
notice of availability of  the RI/FS report  and  the Proposed  Plan should be
published in a major newspaper,  and both documents should be made available  to
the public for comment.

3.2  ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LEAD AGENCY AND
     SUPPORT AGENCY

     In order for the remedy  selection process  to be successful, lead and
support agencies should interact throughout the entire RI/FS and Proposed Plan
process.  The goal of this continued interaction  is to reach agreement  on the
Proposed Plan and the RI/FS report before the public comment period.
Agreement by these agencies depends on the  interaction and flow  of information
that occurs during the RI/FS  process.

     3.2.1  Designation  of  Roles and Responsibilities

     EPA and the State play specific roles  throughout the remedial process.
These roles should be defined in the Superfund Memorandum of Agreement  (SMOA),
Cooperative Agreement (CA), or State Superfund  Contract (SSC).2  The  SMOA
    n
     The SMOA is a procedural agreement that outlines cooperative efforts between States and EPA
Regions and defines the roles and responsibilities of each party in the conduct of a Superfund program in
a State. For more information on these, see Draft Guidance on Preparing a Superfund Memorandum of
Agreement (SMOA) (OSWER Directive 9375.0-01, September 1988).  The CA is a contractual agreement
between EPA and the State, in which EPA appropriates money to the State to conduct remedial planning

-------
                                                       OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                       3-4

and/or CA should designate the lead and  support  agency for conducting the
RI/FS, developing  the  Proposed Plan, and drafting  the ROD.  The SMOA, if
applicable, should describe the general  procedures for oversight and
interaction between  EPA and the State.   Additionally, the SMOA should contain
site-specific'agreements between EPA and the State,  such as which agencies are
designated to take the roles of the lead and support agencies at specific
sites.  In the absence of a SMOA, a CA negotiated  between EPA and the State
should provide this  information for each specific  site.   The SSC, in contrast,
should be used when  the State has no lead responsibilities for a particular
site or project and  only when documentation of the cost-share is necessary.

     3.2.2   Lead and  Support Agency Responsibilities

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

     •    Draft the  Proposed Plan;

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

     •    Respond  in writing to comments from the  support
          agency(ies)  and include both the comments and responses in
          the administrative record file(s);

     •    Summarize  the comments received from the support
          agency(ies)  and present the  lead agency's response in the
          Proposed Plan;

     •    Publish  a  newspaper notice announcing  availability of the
          RI/FS report and Proposed Plan; and

     •    Make the RI/FS report  and Proposed  Plan  available to the
          public  in  the administrative record  file.
activities and/or remedial action in compliance with the proposed NCP. The SSC documents any required
cost sharing between EPA and the State but does not involve disbursement of Federal monies.

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

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                     3-5

     The support agency's primary responsibilities are to review and  comment
in a timely fashion on (1) specific RI/FS deliverables, (2)  the draft RI/FS
report(s), and (3) the Proposed Plan.   The statute requires  that this review
specifically address the preferred alternative,  other remedial  alternatives,
ARARs, and any proposed waivers to ARARs.

     The role of other program offices  within EPA and State  agencies  is  to
provide specific comments on the alternatives analyzed in the RI/FS report.
EPA and the State should establish the  appropriate procedures and time frames
for these intra-agency reviews.  Review of the RI/FS report  by other  program
offices should be conducted at appropriate times during the  RI/FS process  to
ensure that alternatives in the detailed analysis phase of the RI/FS  report
comply with other program requirements  (e.g., ARARs).  For EPA,  this  should
involve review by program offices such  as the Water Program,  the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Program,  and the Toxic Substances Control  Act
Program.  If a draft Proposed Plan is  available when the RI/FS report is ready
to be circulated, then the Plan should  be circulated at the  same time.
Alternatively, a cover memorandum indicating the preferred alternative and any
proposed waivers to ARARs should accompany the RI/FS report.

     3.2.3  Management Review of the Proposed  Plan

     The lead and support agencies should determine the appropriate level  of
managerial review for the draft Proposed Plan and,  as appropriate,  include
this in the SMOA, CA, or SSC.  The Regional Administrator and State Director
should be briefed on the RI/FS report  and the Proposed Plan  by their
respective staffs prior to the release  of these documents to  the public.  The
Assistant Administrator of the Office  of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) should be briefed if the Proposed Plan and ROD for a  site have not
been delegated to the Regional Administrator.  Because the Proposed Plan
provides the first opportunity for the  public to comment on  the remedial
action identified as the preferred alternative by EPA and the State,  the
Regional Administrator or State Director should be apprised  of the contents of
both the RI/FS report and Proposed Plan,  as well  as of any unresolved or
potential issues.  This is especially true if a waiver to an  ARAR is  involved
or if there are unresolved issues between  the staffs of the  lead and  support
agencies.

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     3-6

     3.2.4  Support Agency Comment Period

     The support agency's comment period presents an  important  opportunity  for
the lead and support agencies to reach  agreement on the preferred  alternative.
The lead agency should seek agreement from the support agency on the  Proposed
Plan prior to making the Plan available to the public.  The  comment period
begins when the support agency receives the Proposed  Plan  from  the lead  agency
and should last at least five, but no more than ten,  working days.  If a
different time period for review is established in the SMOA, CA, or SSC, that
time period should be followed.   As previously mentioned,  the draft RI/FS
report could be given to the support agency before the Proposed Plan  is  ready
for review.  The review period for the  draft RI/FS report  should last at least
15 working days, unless a different time period is established  in  the SMOA,
CA, or SSC, or by some informal  arrangement between the lead and support
agencies.

     During the review period, the support agency should provide written
comments on the preferred alternative and other components of the  Proposed
Plan.  These comments should specify one of the following:

     •    Agreement, with or without comments;

     •    Disagreement, with or without comments; or

     •    No comment on the Plan at this time.

     If the support agency does not respond to the lead agency's request for
comments or prefers to withhold its comments until the public comment period,
a copy of the written request for comments and a note documenting  that the
support agency did not provide comments should be placed in  the administrative
record file by the lead agency prior to the public comment period.

     The lead agency should respond formally to the support  agency's  comments
that it receives prior to making the Proposed Plan available to the public.
The lead agency should address any unresolved issues  with  the support agency
through a written explanation sent to the support agency.  The  response  should
address any concerns relating to the alternatives identified in the Proposed
Plan, the preferred alternative, ARARs, and any proposed ARAR waivers,
particularly any that relate to State standards.  In  addition to the  formal
response (i.e., letter) sent to the support agency that addresses  the points

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     3-7

raised, comments from the support agency should also be summarized in the
Proposed Plan under the State/support agency acceptance criterion in the
Evaluation of Alternatives section.   These comments and the lead agency's
formal response to these comments should be included, in their entirety, in
the administrative record file.

3.3   PROCEDURES FOR  RESOLVING  DISPUTES

     If a dispute should arise between the lead and support agencies during
any phase of the remedial process, the staffs of the lead and support agencies
should attempt to resolve these issues in a timely manner.  In the event that
staff resolution is not possible, the issue(s) should be elevated promptly to
the attention of management for resolution.

     The lead and support agencies should use the dispute resolution process
specified in the SMOA or CA,  when these are appropriate.  If Federal agencies
are involved, the dispute resolution process specified in the IAG should be
followed.  Alternatively, the lead and support agencies could consider
utilizing the dispute resolution process specified in Subpart F of the
proposed NCP.

     Subpart F, "State Involvement in Hazardous Substance Response," of the
proposed NCP (40 CFR Part 300) outlines a dispute resolution process that EPA
Regions and States should use to resolve disputes that arise during the RI/FS
and remedy selection process.  This  approach encourages the lead and support
agencies' Remedial Project Managers  to resolve any disputes promptly.  If this
cannot be accomplished, the issue could be referred to their supervisors for
further EPA/State consultation.*  This  supervisory referral  and resolution
process should continue, if necessary,  to the level of Director of the State
Agency and the Regional Administrator,  respectively.  If agreement still
cannot be reached, the dispute should be referred to the Assistant
Administrator (OSWER) who serves as  final arbiter.

     Regardless of the process utilized, the result should be an equitable
resolution of outstanding issues.  There may be instances, however, in which a
final  resolution cannot be achieved.  If this should occur, there are two
alternatives for continuing effective action.  First, if EPA is the lead
     It is possible that one of the participants will choose to refer an unresolved issue to upper
management while the other participant chooses to maintain jurisdiction over the issue.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     3-8

agency (pursuant to sections  104,  106,  or  122), the Region should use its
discretion as to whether to proceed with publication of the Proposed Plan.
Second, in the event that the State is  the lead agency (pursuant to section
104), EPA could elect to become  the lead agency for the Proposed Plan, public
participation activities, and the  ROD.   (This applies only to Fund-financed,
State-lead projects.)  It should be noted,  however, that mutual acceptance by
EPA and the State of the preferred alternative and, ultimately, the selected
remedy by EPA and the State is crucial  to  effecting cleanup at the site.

3.4  ROLE OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

     Executive Order 12580 delegates the authority for carrying out the
requirements of CERCLA sections  117(a)  and (c) to Federal agencies with
Federal facilities under their jurisdiction.  A Federal agency, therefore, has
the responsibility to issue the  Proposed Plan.  The lAGs between a Federal
agency, EPA, and, in many cases, the State should establish the
responsibilities for each party  in preparing the Proposed Plan for Federal
facilities.

     As the lead agency, a Federal agency's responsibilities for preparing the
Proposed Plan include those lead agency responsibilities specified in Chapters
2 and 3 of this guidance. As the  support  agency, EPA and/or the State should
have an adequate period of time  prior to publication of the Proposed Plan to
comment on the RI/FS report and  the draft  Proposed Plan.  The length of the
review period should be specified  in the IAG.  The Federal agency should
respond formally to comments  made  by EPA and the State.  The formal response
to the comments should be sent to  the support agency(ies) and included in the
administrative record file prior to the beginning of the public comment
period.

     Support agency (i.e., EPA and/or the  State) comments and Federal agency
responses to those comments  should also be summarized in the Proposed Plan.
Under the State/support agency acceptance  criterion in the Evaluation of
Alternatives section, the Federal  agency should:

     •    Explain whether the support agency agrees or disagrees
          with the Proposed  Plan (especially the preferred
          alternative);

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                      3-9

     •    Indicate which alternative the support agency prefers when
          there is a disagreement; and

     •    Provide a summary of any outstanding support agency
          comments.

3.5  ROLE OF  POTENTIALLY  RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

     In accordance with the requirements of CERCLA sections 104 and 122, EPA
can provide PRPs with the opportunity to conduct the required response actions
(i.e., the RI/FS, remedial design, and remedial action).  In the event that
the PRPs conduct the RI/FS, either EPA or the State will become the lead
governmental  agency for general oversight of the RI/FS.  EPA or the State
should prepare the Proposed Plan and the ROD, even if the PRP conducts the
RI/FS.5

     PRPs could participate in the remedy selection process by commenting on
the Proposed Plan and on other publicly available information contained in the
administrative record file during the formal public comment period.  The lead
agency, while not legally obligated to respond to comments submitted by PRPs
and members of the public prior to the formal public comment period, is
encouraged to do so.
    5 At those sites for which the PRP conducts the RI/FS, the PRP should not indicate its preferred
alternative in the RI/FS report.  If the PRP wants to communicate this information to the lead agency, it
should do so through some other mechanism, such as a memorandum.

-------
                                                OSWER Directives 9355.3-02
                              CHAPTER 4

       THE NEWSPAPER NOTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF
   THE PROPOSED PLAN  AND THE  PUBLIC  COMMENT PERIOD
     This chapter summarizes the requirements for the newspaper notification,
which announces the availability of the Proposed Plan, and presents guidance
on procedures for the public comment period.

4.1  STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

     CERCLA section 117 requires that  upon completion of the Proposed  Plan,
the lead agency shall notify the public of the availability of the  Plan, the
RI/FS report, and the administrative record file.  The statutory requirements
are as follows:

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

              Publish a notice and brief analysis of the
              Proposed Plan and make  such Plan available to
              the public; and

              Include sufficient information in the notice and
              analysis as may be necessary to provide a
              reasonable explanation  of the Proposed Plan and
              alternative proposals considered.

     •   Section 117(d) further specifies that:

              Publication shall include, at a minimum,
              publication in a major  local newspaper of
              general circulation.  In addition,  each item
              developed, received, published, or made
              available under this section to the public shall
              be available for public inspection and copying
              at or near the facility or site where the
              remedial action is being considered.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     4-2

4.2  WRITING THE NEWSPAPER  NOTIFICATION

     The lead agency's newspaper  notification should include a brief abstract
of the Proposed Plan,  which  describes  the alternatives analyzed and identifies
the preferred alternative.   The notice should be published in a widely read
section of the newspaper,  rather  than  in the classified advertisements or
legal notices.  Key elements of the  notification are summarized below.
Exhibit 4-1 provides a sample newspaper notification.

     4.2.1     Section-by-Section Description of the Newspaper
               Notification

     The newspaper notification should consist of the following elements:

     •    Site Name and Location.  The notice should include the
          proper site name and location.

     •    The Date and Location of a Public Meeting (if scheduled).
          If a meeting has not been  requested or scheduled, the
          notice should inform the public of its right to request
          one.

     •    Identification of Lead  and Support Agencies.  The notice
          should identify which entities  (i.e., EPA, State agency,
          or other Federal  agency) have served as lead and support
          agencies for the response  action.

     •    Alternatives Evaluated  in  the Detailed Analysis.  The
          notice should list the  remedial alternatives evaluated  in
          the detailed analysis phase  of the FS.1

     •    Identification of Preferred  Alternative.  A  brief
          statement of the major  components of the preferred
          alternative should be included.2
    1 Statutory requirements of CERCLA section 117(a).

    p
     Statutory requirements of CERCLA section 117(a).

-------
                                                                OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                             4-3

                                      EXHIBIT 4-1

                          Sample  Newspaper  Notification
                       of Availability of the Proposed Plan
                                    THE UNITED STATES
                          ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                            Invites
                                 PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE
                     PROPOSED CLEANUP OF THE EIO INDUSTRIAL SITE
                                              at
                            129 FRANKLIN STREET, NAMELESS, TN
      The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Tennessee Pollution Control Board
(TPCB) will hold a Public Meeting to discuss the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report (RI/FS)
and the Proposed Plan for the EIO site.  The meeting will be held on October 17, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in
the Community Hall, 123 Elm Road, Nameless, Tennessee,

      EPA (the lead agency) and the TPCB (the support agency) evaluated the following options for
addressing the contaminated  soil at the EIO site:

            Capping the contaminated soils
            Excavation and disposal in an off-site landfill
            Excavation, treatment of organics (in a vaporization loop), stabilization of
            residual metals, and disposal in an on-site landfill
            Excavation and off-site incineration
            Excavation, on-site incineration of soil (for organics), and stabilization of
            residual metals
            No action

      Based on available information, the preferred  option at this time is to excavate the 7,500 cubic
yards of contaminated soil at the site, treat the volatile organics in a vaporization loop, stabilize the soils
to immobilize metal contaminants, and  dispose of them in an on-site landfill.

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

      The Proposed Plan has been mailed to all known interested  parties. Also, complete documentation
of the analysis is presented in the RI/FS Report  and in the Proposed Plan, which are available with the
rest of the administrative record file at the  Nameless Public Library, 125 Elm Street.

      The public may comment in person at the public meeting and/or may submit written comments
today and until October 31, 1989 to Joshua Doe at the EPA address below. For further information,
contact:
                                          Joshua Doe
                                Community Relations Coordinator
                              U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
                                      123 Peachtree Street
                                       Atlanta, GA  00000
                                         (555) 555-4640

              Toll Free (800) 333-3333 between 8:30  a.m. and  4:30 p.m. Monday to Friday

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     4-4

     •    Request for Public Comments.   The  notice  should emphasize
          that the lead agency is  soliciting public comment on  all
          of the alternatives evaluated  in the detailed analysis
          phase of the FS,  as well  as  on the preferred alternative.
          It should include a clear statement that  the preferred
          alternative is only a preliminary  determination and that
          any of the other  options presented could  be selected  as
          the remedy based  upon public comment,  new information, or
          a revaluation of existing information.   The readers
          should be referred to the RI/FS report and other contents
          of the administrative record file  for  further information
          on all of the remedial  alternatives considered.

     •    Public Participation.   The notice  should  inform the public
          of its role in the remedy selection process and provide
          the following information:

               The location of the information repositories and
               administrative record file(s);

               The methods  by which the  public may  submit comments; and

               The dates of the public comment period;

4.3   PUBLIC COMMENT  PERIOD

     This section provides  guidance on the procedures the lead  agency  should
follow to satisfy the public participation requirements in section  117 of
CERCLA.  Section 117(a)(2)  requires that the lead  agency do the following:

          ...  [provide]  a  reasonable  opportunity   for submission  of
          written and oral  comments and  an  opportunity for a public
          meeting  at  or near  the facility   at  issue  regarding the
          proposed plan and regarding any proposed  findings  [relating
          to cleanup standards and  any proposed waiver]...  [and] keep
          a  transcript  of  the  meeting and make  such  transcript
          available to the  public.

     The lead agency is charged with making  the  relevant  documents,  such as
the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS report,  available  to  the  public at the time

-------
                                                       OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                       4-5

the public  comment period begins.3  In addition,  the lead agency should ensure
that  any  information considered or relied  upon in selecting the response
action  is included as part of the administrative record file and is available
to the  public during the public comment  period.

      CERCLA section 117(a)(2) also requires the  lead agency to provide  the
public  with a reasonable opportunity to  submit written and oral comments  on
the Proposed Plan.  Currently, the lead  agency must allow the public a  minimum
of 21 days  to comment on the information contained in the RI/FS report
(including  any proposed waivers relating to ARARs).  Proposed revisions to the
NCP would increase the minimum period allowed for public comment to 30  days.
Longer  time periods may be determined to be appropriate, depending on specific
site  circumstances.

      While  the lead agency could respond to oral  or written comments received
during  the  RI/FS  process, prior to the public comment period, the lead  agency
has no  legal  obligation to do so.  To ensure that all comments are addressed,
the lead  agency should ask individuals to  resubmit comments that were
initially made during the RI/FS process  during the formal public comment
period.

      Further guidance on the public comment period and the lead agency's
responsibilities  can be found in Community Relations in Superfund:  A Handbook
(OSWER  Directive  9230.0-3B, June 1988) and the draft Interim Guidance on
Administrative Records for the Selection of CERCLA Response Actions (OSWER
Directive 9833.3A, March 1989).
     In addition to the newspaper notice, the notice of the Proposed Plan should be sent directly to the
PRPs via the community relations or enforcement mailing list for the site. (Although this is not a
statutory requirement, this may allow those PRPs, who may be outside the circulation area of the local
newspaper, to participate in a timely manner.)

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                CHAPTER  5

                   PRE-ROD SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
5.1  OVERVIEW

     After the public  comment period ends, a final remedial  alternative  is
selected for adoption  in the ROD.  The remedy is selected based on  the
analysis presented  in  the  Proposed Plan and RI/FS report, giving consideration
to the comments from the support agency and the public, as well as  any other
new and significant information received or generated.  The lead agency  may
re-evaluate the preferred  alternative in light of this information  and may
change a component  of  the  preferred remedy or choose to implement a remedy
other than the preferred alternative.

     If a change is made,  according to CERCLA section 117(b),  the lead agency
should analyze these changes to determine if the modifications are
"significant".   When the lead agency makes significant changes (such as  a
change to the component of an alternative or a change from the preferred
alternative to another alternative presented in the Proposed Plan), these
changes should be explained in the ROD.  In some instances,  significant
changes may also warrant issuance of a revised Proposed Plan and additional
public comment.  What  constitutes a "significant" change is a  site-specific
determination made  by  the  lead agency, taking into consideration the
information available  to the public, the original description  of the
alternatives studied in detail in the Proposed Plan and RI/FS  report, and the
impact that the changes may have on the scope, performance,  or cost of the
remedy.

     This chapter:  (1) presents a general framework for categorizing minor
and significant changes made to the Proposed Plan after it is  issued for
public comment; and (2) specifies documentation and communication activities
that may be necessary  to inform the public of these changes.  Because what
constitutes a significant  change will vary depending upon site circumstances
and the manner in which the information was presented in the RI/FS  and
Proposed Plan,  "significant change" cannot be specifically defined  in this
guidance.

-------
                                                   OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                    5-2

5.2  REQUIREMENT TO ADDRESS CHANGES

     CERCLA section 117(b) requires that the  final  remedial action plan (i.e.,
the ROD)  be accompanied by:

          a discussion of any significant changes (and the reasons for
          such  changes)  in the proposed plan and a response to each
          of the  significant  comments,  criticisms,  and  new  data
          submitted [in the RI/FS report and  the Proposed Plan].

     Based on this requirement,  the lead agency should document significant
changes that are  identified and the reasons  for these changes in the Decision
Summary of the  ROD.   In addition to complying with  the statutory requirement
in CERCLA section 117(b), the lead agency should determine whether additional
public comment  is necessary.  If significant  changes are made to the Proposed
Plan such that  the public, through its  review of the RI/FS report and Proposed
Plan, could not have  reasonably anticipated  these changes, then a revised
Proposed  Plan should  be issued for public comment before a ROD is prepared.
Section 5.4 provides  criteria for determining whether or not a significant
change could reasonably have been anticipated by the public.  Where such
changes could reasonably have been anticipated by the public, the lead agency
need not  provide  an additional opportunity for public comment.
5.3  IDENTIFYING  CATEGORIES OF CHANGES

     The lead  agency  has the discretion to  make  changes to the Proposed Plan
based either on  new information received from the  public or support agency or
on information generated by the lead agency itself during the remedial
process.  In evaluating new information, the lead  agency's initial focus
should be on whether  the new information causes  the lead agency either to
change a significant  or minor aspect of the selected remedy or to choose a
remedy other than  the alternative that was  preferred in the Proposed Plan.

     New information  received during the public  comment period typically will
relate to the  scope,  performance, or cost of the remedial approach.  Typical
significant changes generally include the following:

     Scope:        Changes that alter the  selected alternative by
                   addressing a substantially greater or lesser volume

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     5-3

                    of waste, a new environmental  pathway,  or  by
                    encompassing a substantially greater physical  area  of
                    the site;

     Performance:   Changes in-treatment technologies or processes that
                    significantly alter the long-term effectiveness of
                    the remedy or that  have significantly different
                    short-term effects.

     Cost:          Changes to any aspect of the selected alternative such
                    that the capital  or operation and maintenance  cost
                    estimates for the final alternative are significantly
                    altered.

     Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 elaborate on the distinction  between minor and
significant changes and describe the  documentation requirements specific to
each category of change.  Figure 5-1  summarizes the process for analyzing and
documenting significant changes.

     5.3.1   Minor Changes

     Minor changes are those that have  little or no impact  on  the  overall
scope, performance, or cost of the alternative, as originally  presented in the
RI/FS report or Proposed Plan.   Such  changes typically will  be clarifications,
administrative changes, and minor technical or engineering  changes that do not
significantly alter the overall scope,  performance,  or cost of the
alternative.  Although the statute does not require documentation  of these
minor changes, these should be noted  in the Description of Alternatives
section of the ROD Decision Summary or  in supporting information  in the
administrative record file.  Minor changes should not be discussed in the
significant changes section of the ROD  Decision Summary.

     5.3.2   Significant Changes

     Prior to the final selection of  a  remedy, new information or  public
comments may cause the lead agency to make significant changes to  the Proposed
Plan that had been released for public  comment.  Modifying  the selected
alternative or changing from the preferred alternative to another  alternative
are examples of significant changes.  When there are any proposed  changes to a
component of an alternative, the changes should be analyzed to determine if

-------
            5-4
         FIGURE 5-1
    Pre-ROD Changes
  Public Comment On:
* Proposed Plan
  Administrative Record
* RI/FS Report
     Lead Agency
  Analyzes Comments
           Is
      Lead Agency
       Suggesting
       Changes?
      Does Change
    Significantly Affect
        * Scope
        * Performance
         Cost
       of Selected
      Alternative?
         Could
     Change Reason-
      ably Have Been
       Anticipated'?
     Prepare ROD and
    Document Changes

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     5-5

they significantly affect  the scope, performance,  or cost of  the  selected
remedy.  The lead agency may decide, for example,  to double the physical size
of the site; to change  the remediation period from three years to six; or to
add an additional component of the long-term management controls  that
increases-the operation and maintenance costs.  When a significant change is
made, the lead agency should, at a minimum, document the change and the
reasons for such a change  in the Decision Summary  of the ROD.  In some cases,
additional public comment  may be necessary.  The basis for determining which
significant changes warrant additional public comment is discussed in section
5.4 below.
5.4  CRITERIA FOR ANALYZING  SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

     Once it has been  determined that a significant change  is necessary, the
lead agency should  decide whether the change warrants  only  documentation in
the ROD or additional  public comment.  To make this assessment, the lead
agency decides which of two categories the significant change(s) belongs:  (1)
changes that are a  logical outgrowth of the information and analysis already
presented to the public; or (2) changes that the public could not have
reasonably anticipated, based on information available during the public
comment period.   If the lead agency determines that the significant change is
a logical outgrowth, the change should be documented in the ROD Decision
Summary.  In those  limited situations in which the public could not have
reasonably anticipated the changes, the lead agency should  issue a revised
Proposed Plan for public comment.  Additional  means of classifying changes are
presented below.

     5.4.1     Significant Changes that may be Considered Logical
               Outgrowths of the Information  Available to the  Public

     In analyzing significant changes, three broad scenarios of changes are
likely to be classified as logical outgrowths  of the information on which the
public had the opportunity to comment.  The significant changes in each of
these scenarios  would  only have to be explained in the ROD;  additional public
comment is not necessary.  The three scenarios are as  follows:

     (1)  A Change  to  a Component of the Selected  Alternative.  The lead
agency may make  a change to a component of the selected remedy (e.g., a change
in cost, timing,  level  of performance, or ARARs) that  may result in a

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                      5-6

significant alteration to the scope, performance, or cost of the remedy,  while
the overall waste management approach represented by the alternative remains
the same.  If the significant change to a component of the alternative could
have been reasonably anticipated by the public, taking into consideration the
inherent uncertainties associated with the waste management/engineering
process, the lead agency need only document the significant change in the ROD
Decision Summary.

     (2)  Selection of a Remedy Other than the one selected In the RI/FS  and
Proposed Plan.  The lead agency may determine, based on information received
during the comment period, that the preferred alternative in the Proposed Plan
no longer provides the most appropriate balance of tradeoffs among the
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.  Information available
to the lead agency may suggest that another alternative from the Proposed Plan
and RI/FS report provides the best balance of tradeoffs, and the lead agency
may select the other alternative.  Such a change requires only documentation
in the ROD because the public has been apprised previously that that
alternative (or any other alternative in the detailed analysis) might be
selected as the remedy; thus, the public had adequate opportunity to review
and comment on it.

     (3)  Combining Components of Alternatives.  In some instances, Proposed
Plans and RI/FS reports may recommend two or more alternatives (or
combinations of alternatives) for addressing different pathways at a site.
For example, an RI/FS report prepared for a site could develop two
alternatives, one to address contaminated soils and another to remediate the
ground water.  In identifying the preferred alternative for each of these
media in the Proposed Plan, the lead agency did not make a conclusive
determination regarding the most appropriate combination of the source control
and ground-water alternatives for the site.  Thus, if the lead agency chooses
to retain the preferred alternative for the ground water, but rejects the
preferred soil remediation alternative and chooses a different alternative
from among those presented in the Proposed Plan, the new selection would be
considered a logical outgrowth of the information on which the public already
had the opportunity to comment and a new comment period would not be required.
The change should, however, be documented in the ROD Decision Summary along
with the reasons for the change.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     5-7

     5.4.2     Significant Changes that may not be  Considered
               Logical Outgrowths of the Information Available to the
               Public

     Changes that  are not  logical outgrowths of the information presented in
the Proposed Plan  and the  RI/FS report should be documented by the lead agency
in a revised Proposed Plan and a new  public comment period held.  When issuing
a revised Proposed Plan to document a significant change that was not a
logical  outgrowth,  the revised document should be prepared in accordance with
the requirements of both CERCLA section 117 and the NCP.  (These requirements
are discussed in Chapters  2 and 3 of  this guidance.)  Two changes that require
additional  public  comment  are listed  below.

     (1)  Selection of a New Alternative that was Not Previously Analyzed.
The lead agency may determine that an alternative that was not presented in
the Proposed Plan  or detailed analysis phase of the RI/FS report should be
selected as the remedy.  In this case, the public could not have reasonably
anticipated the lead agency making such a selection; therefore, the lead
agency should issue a revised Proposed Plan presenting the new preferred
alternative and provide appropriate supporting information for public comment.
The significant change should also be described in the ROD.  This description
should note the initially  preferred alternative, the new alternative, and the
reason for the change.

     (2)  Significant Change to a Component of the Selected Alternative.  A
change to a component of the selected alternative (e.g., a newly discovered
ARAR, which, if complied with, would  radically alter the feasibility of the
alternative, or a  change in a portion of the treatment train to be used that
would alter significantly  the alternative's ability to reduce the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of waste) requires additional public comment if making the
change will radically alter the overall remedy with regard to its scope,
performance, or cost in a  manner that the public could not have reasonably
anticipated.  Such changes could radically alter the volume of waste managed
or the physical scope of the action,  as estimated in the Proposed Plan and the
RI/FS report.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     5-8

5.5  EXAMPLES OF PRE-ROD  CHANGES

     The following text provides  examples of the three types of changes that
can be made to the selected remedy  (i.e., minor changes, significant changes
that should be explained in the ROD,  and significant changes that should be
explained in both a revised Proposed  Plan and a new public comment period).
At a hypothetical site, disposal  of septic waste and some hazardous substances
has resulted in the contamination of  11,000 cubic yards of soil with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and metals.  There are six alternatives identified in
the RI/FS report for controlling  the  source of contamination at the site:

          (1)  No action;
          (2)  Capping;
          (3)  Excavation and disposal  in an off-site landfill;
          (4)  Excavation,  vaporization of volatile organics,
               and disposal in an on-site landfill;
          (5)  Off-site incineration; and
          (6)  On-site incineration and solidification.

     The preferred alternative in the Proposed Plan was the fourth
alternative, which specifically calls for:

          •    The excavation, vaporization, and disposal in an
               on-site landfill of  11,000 cubic yards of
               contaminated soil;
          •    Capital cost:  $4,666,000;
          •    Annual O&M cost:   $41,000;
          •    Present worth cost:  $5,050,150; and
          •    Implementation time:  12 to  15 months.
NOTE:     The examples presented here do not represent  strict thresholds  for
          changes in cost, volume, and/or time.   THIS GUIDANCE  DOES NOT
          ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     5-9

     5.5.1  Minor Change

     Based on  information  received  during  the public comment period, the lead
agency determines that the capital  cost  estimate  in the Proposed Plan was
about 10 percent too  low;  the  actual  capital cost of the remedy is $5,100,000.
The lead agency also  identifies  factors  that would extend the implementation
time frame to  18 months.   These  changes  do not significantly alter the scope,
performance, or cost  of the remedy.   Although the changes are not required to
be explained in the Significant  Changes  section of the ROD, they should be
discussed in the Description of  Alternatives section of the ROD Decision
Summary, and the supporting information  should be included in the
administrative record file(s).

     5.5.2  Significant Change Requiring Documentation in the ROD

     The lead  agency  receives  new information during the public comment period
that prompts a change in the remediation goal for the soils; as a result, the
volume of contaminated soils that should be addressed is increased by 10,000
cubic yards more than the  initial estimate.  To incorporate this change,  the
final remedial action plan specifications  are modified as follows:

          •    Excavation,  vaporization, and disposal in an on-
               site landfill of  14,600 cubic yards of
               contaminated soil;

          •    Capital  cost:   $5,366,000;

          •    Annual O&M  cost:  $41,000;

          •    Present worth cost:  $5,750,150; and

          •    Implementation  time:   18  to 21 months.

     To address the larger volume of  contaminated soils, the lead agency
decides to implement  the preferred  alternative with some changes made to those
components presented  in the Proposed  Plan.  The decision to increase the
volume of soils could be considered a logical outgrowth of the information,
even though doing so  would impact the scope, performance, or cost of the
remedy.  Although the volume of  soils being addressed is increased by one-
third, there are economies of  scale in the landfill construction and

-------
                                                   OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                    5-10

volatilization  process such that capital  costs  of  the remedy are expected to
increase only by  15 percent, and O&M costs are  not expected to increase at
all.   The time  required to implement the  remedy is increased by approximately
six months.   The  changes in the specifications  of  the components of the remedy
are documented  in the ROD Decision Summary,  including an explanation of why
the changes  were  made.  No additional public comment period is necessary.

     5.5.3     Significant Change Necessitating the  Issuance of a
               New Proposed Plan, of a New  Public Comment Period,
               and their Documentation  in  the ROD

     A remedy is  selected that was NOT presented in the Proposed Plan or the
detailed analysis section of the FS.  The selected alternative is:

          •     In-situ vitrification of 11,000  cubic yards of
               contaminated soil;

          .     Capital cost:  $3,920,000  to $5,292,000;

          •     Annual O&M cost:  $33,000;

          •     Present worth cost:  $4,229,200  to  $5,601,200;
               and

          •     Implementation time:  12 to 15 months.

     This remedy  is selected because new information  is received indicating
that in-situ vitrification could be used  effectively  at the site.  This new
remedy, however,  is quite different in scope and performance from any other
alternative  considered in detail in either the  Proposed Plan or RI/FS report.
Because the  public has not had an adequate opportunity to comment on the
technical, environmental, and human health aspects of the remedy or to
evaluate and compare  its performance in terms of the  nine evaluation criteria,
a revised Proposed Plan should be prepared and  a new  public comment period
should be held  before the remedy is adopted in  the ROD.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                CHAPTER 6

                 WRITING THE RECORD  OF DECISION
6.1  INTRODUCTION

     This chapter presents  a  section-by-section discussion  of  the components
of a CERCLA Record of Decision  (ROD).  These components are the Declaration,
the Decision Summary,  and the Responsiveness Summary.   This chapter applies
specifically to decision documents prepared for final  response actions that
are planned either for a site or an operable unit within a  site.  Final
response actions are  those  actions that address the principal  threats posed by
the site or operable  unit,  that comply with statutory  determinations, and that
address the statutory preference for treatment as a principal  element.

     Guidance on preparing  a  ROD that documents a no action or an interim (or
limited) action is presented  in Chapter 9.  A no action decision is made when
the lead agency determines  that a response action is not necessary to control,
mitigate, or eliminate exposure.  An interim action decision is made for those
actions of limited scope that will be followed by final response actions for
that operable unit.   Chapter  9 outlines the modifications to the standard
format  (as outlined  in this chapter), which should be  made  when documenting
these two kinds of remedial decisions.  In addition, the procedures in Chapter
9 should be consulted  when  a  decision is being contemplated that includes both
a selected remedy and  a contingency remedy which could be implemented in the
event that the primary remedy does not attain its performance  specifications.

     6.1.1  Purpose of the Record of Decision

     The ROD documents the  remedial action plan for a  site  or  operable unit.
It is prepared by the  lead  agency in consultation with the  support
agency(ies).  The ROD  has the following three purposes:

     •     First,  the  ROD serves a legal function in that it
          certifies that the  remedy selection process  was carried

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-2

          out in accordance with the requirements of CERCLA and, to
          the extent practicable, the NCR;1

     •    Second,  the ROD is a technical  document that outlines the
          engineering components and remediation goals of the
          selected remedy;  and

     •    Third, the ROD is informational,  providing the public with
          a consolidated source of information about the history,
          characteristics,  and risks posed  by the conditions at the
          site,  as well  as  a summary of the cleanup alternatives
          considered, their evaluation, and the rationale behind the
          selected remedy.

     6.1.2  Statutory Requirements to  Issue the Record of Decision

     Sections 113  and 117 of CERCLA, as amended, require that the Agency issue
a final  remedial action  plan.  The Superfund program commonly refers to this
plan as  the Record of Decision (ROD).  Section 113(k)(2)(B)(v) of CERCLA, as
amended, calls for "a statement of basis and purpose for the selected remedy
at a site."  In  addition, section 117(b)  requires that:

          notice of the  final remedial  action plan [ROD] adopted
          shall  be published and the plan shall be made available to
          the public before commencement of any remedial action.
          Such final plan shall be accompanied by a discussion of
          any significant changes (and the  reasons for such changes)
          in the proposed plan and a response to each of the
          significant comments, criticisms, and new data submitted
          in written or oral presentations  [Responsiveness Summary].

     6.1.3   Major Components of the Record of  Decision

     The ROD consists of three basic components:  a Declaration, a Decision
Summary, and a Responsiveness Summary  (see Exhibit 6-1).
    1 Section 121 (a) of CERCLA, as amended, provides that remedial actions should be carried out in
accordance with section 121 "and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan."

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-3

     •    The Declaration functions  as an abstract for the key
          information contained in the ROD and is the section of the
          ROD signed by the EPA Regional Administrator or Assistant
          Administrator;

     •    The Decision Summary provides  an overview of the site
          characteristics,  the alternatives evaluated, and the
          analysis of those options.  The Decision Summary also
          identifies the  selected remedy and explains how the remedy
          fulfills statutory requirements; and

     •    The Responsiveness Summary addresses public comments
          received on the Proposed Plan, RI/FS report, and other
          information in  the administrative record.

     The key elements of  each of these three components are described in the
following sections.

6.2  KEY ELEMENTS OF THE DECLARATION

     The Declaration functions as an  abstract for the information contained in
the ROD.  It provides a brief description of the selected remedy for the site
and a formal statement explaining that the selected remedy complies with
CERCLA and is consistent,  to the extent  practicable, with the NCP.  The
Declaration  is the section  of the ROD signed by the EPA Regional Administrator
or Assistant Administrator.   The State Director or Federal facility
representative should co-sign the ROD when the State or other Federal Agency
is designated as the lead agency for  preparing the ROD.  Exhibit 6-2 is a
sample of the Declaration.

-------
                                                OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                              6-4
                       EXHIBIT 6-1

         Outline  for the Record  of  Decision
Declaration
           Site Name and Location
           Statement of Basis and Purpose
           Assessment of the Site
           Description of the Selected Remedy
           Statutory Determinations
           Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the Remedy
Decision Summary
           Site Name and Location
           Site History and Enforcement Activities
           Highlights of Community Participation
           Scope and Role of Operable Unit
           Site Characteristics
           Summary of Site Risks
           Description of Alternatives
           Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
           Selected Remedy
           Statutory Determinations
Responsiveness Summary
           Community Preferences
           Integration of Comments

-------
                                                                               OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                                        6-5
                                               EXHIBIT  6-2

                    Sample Declaration  for  the  Record  of Decision
                                    Statutory Preference for Treatment as  a
                                             Principal Element is  Met
                                   and Five-Year Site Review is not  Required



 SITE NAME AND LOCATION

 Super Kleen Company Site
 Dustbowl, AZ

 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

        This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Super Kleen Company site, in Dustbowl. Arizona,
 chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan.  This
 decision  is based on the administrative record file for this site.

        The State of Arizona concurs on  the selected remedy.

 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

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

 DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY

        This operable unit is the final action of three operable  units for the site.  The  first operable unit at this site involved
 remediation  of a municipal well.  The second operable  unit  involved remediation of the  ground water. This final operable unit
 addresses the source of the soil and ground-water contamination. This action addresses the principal threat remaining at the site by
 treating the  most highly contaminated soils and waste material.   Treatment  residuals and soils contaminated at low levels will be
 disposed of off-site, such that the site will not require any long-term management.

        The major components of the selected remedy  include:

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

        —      Disposal of treatment residuals and 2,000 cubic  yards of contaminated soils  at an off-site  RCRA
               Subtitle C disposal facility.

 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

        The selected  remedy is protective of human health and  the environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
 are legally applicable  or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action,  and is  cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
 solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum  extent practicable  and satisfies the statutory
 preference for remedies that employ treatment  that reduces  toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element. Because this remedy
 will not result  in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based levels, the five-year review will not apply to this action.
Signature (Assistant Administrator/Regional Administrator)           Date
Signature (State Director)

-------
                                                      OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                      6-6

     6.2.1   Site Name and  Location

     The proper site name  (as  listed on  the  National  Priorities List) and
location (citing the town  or county and  State  in  which the site is located)
should be included in the  Declaration.

     6.2.2   Statement of Basis and  Purpose

     Section 113(k)(2)(B)(v) of CERCLA requires that  "a statement of basis and
purpose of the selected remedy" be prepared.   To  comply with this requirement,
EPA must provide an explanation of the factual  and legal  basis upon which the
decision to select a particular remedy was made.   The ROD serves as this
statement of basis and purpose, and the  Declaration should make a statement to
that effect.  In addition, another statement in this  section of the
Declaration should say that the information  supporting the lead and support
agencies' decisions on the selected remedy is  contained in the administrative
record.  [Note:  The administrative record index  need not be attached to the
ROD but should be placed in the administrative record file.]

     6.2.3   Assessment of the Site

     The Declaration should include a  statement of the existence of an
imminent and substantial endangerment  to public health, welfare, or the
environment.  The following language should  be added  to all RODs (except where
the clean-up decision is to take  "no further action"):
     Required Language for Assessment of the Site:

          Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not
          addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may
          present a current or potential threat to public health, welfare, or the
          environment.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-7

     6.2.4  Description  of the Selected  Remedy

     The selected remedy should  be  identified  and described briefly.  This
description should be presented  in  bullet  form and  should specify the
treatment technologies and/or engineering  controls  that will be used, as well
as any institutional  controls, such as  deed  or access restrictions.  This
description should include the following elements:

     •    A brief explanation of how this  response  action fits into
          the overall  site clean-up strategy,  if the action is an
          operable unit (e.g., "this is the  second  of three operable
          units"); and

     •    A statement as to how  the selected response action does or
          does not address the principal threat(s)  posed by the
          site.

     6.2.5  Statutory Determinations

     Finally,  the ROD Declaration should conclude with the finding that the
selected remedy satisfies  the statutory requirements of CERCLA section 121.
For the Declaration,  this  can be accomplished  by making confirmatory
statements that the selected remedy attained the four statutory mandates (see
below) and the statutory preference for treatment.

     The four mandates of  CERCLA section 121 require that all remedial actions
taken pursuant to sections 104 or 106 must:

     •    Be protective of human health and  the environment;

     •    Comply with ARARs (or  justify a  waiver);

     •    Be cost-effective; and

     •    Utilize permanent solutions and  alternative treatment
          technologies or  resource  recovery  technologies, to the
          maximum extent practicable.

     In addition, the statutory  preference for treatment in CERCLA section 121
should be addressed in all  RODs  including  those documenting a selected remedy

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-8

that do not meet the statutory  preference  for treatment.  Section 121 requires
that the lead agency provide  an explanation whenever a remedy  is chosen that
does not employ treatment that  permanently and  significantly reduces the
toxicity, mobility,  or volume of hazardous substances as  its principal
element.

     Finally, the applicability of the  five-year review required by CERCLA
section 121 should be addressed in this part of the Declaration.  This review
is conducted to evaluate whether a remedy  continues to provide adequate
protection of human  health and  the environment, and it should  be conducted at
every site where the remedial action  results in hazardous substances remaining
on-site above health-based levels.

     6.2.5.1   Sample Boilerplate  Language for Making  Statutory
               Determinations

     Sample boilerplate language that addresses the aforementioned statutory
determinations is provided in Exhibits  6-2 and  6-3.  The  language in this
section of the Declaration will  vary  depending  upon whether the statutory
preference for treatment is satisfied and  whether the five-year review is
applicable.  The sample Declaration in  Exhibit  6-2 provides guidance for a
remedy that meets the statutory preference for  treatment  as a  principal
element, with no required five-year review.  The sample Declaration in Exhibit
6-3 provides guidance for a remedy that does not meet the statutory preference
for treatment and for which a five-year review  is required.

     If the remedy does not meet the  statutory  preference for  treatment, then
the Statutory Determinations  section  of the Declaration should state this and
summarize the rationale for choosing  a  remedy that does not contain treatment
as a principal element.  This rationale could be based on the  specific factors
used to determine that the treatment  is impracticable, such as technical
infeasibility, inadequate short-term  protection of human  health and the
environment, or unavailability  of necessary capacity, equipment, or
specialists.  In addition, a  brief statement that past or future operable
units have met or will meet the statutory  preference for  treatment should be
included, when appropriate.

-------
                                                                                 OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                                           6-9
                                                  EXHIBIT  6-3


                      Sample  Declaration  for  the  Record  of  Decision



                                       Statutory Preference for Treatment as a
                                             Principal Element is not Met
                                        and Five-Year Site Review is Required



SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Municipal Landfill Site
Nowhere, NY

STATEMENT  OP BASIS AND PURPOSE

   This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Municipal Landfill site, in Nowhere, New York, developed in
accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan.  This decision is based on
the administrative record for this site.

   The State of New York concurs on the selected remedy.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

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

DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY

   This operable unit is the first of two that are planned for the site.  The first operable unit addresses the source of the contamination
by containing the on-site wastes and contaminated soils.  The function  of this operable unit  is to seal off the Municipal Landfill site as a
source of ground-water contamination and to reduce  the risks associated with exposure to the contaminated materials.  While the remedy
does address one of the principal  threats at the site, the second operable unit  will involve continued study and possible remediation  of the
downgradient contaminant plume.

   The major components of the selected remedy include:

   -      Installing a security fence  around the landfill site;
   —      Capping the 65-acre landfill in accordance with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle D requirements;
   —      Installing surface water controls to accommodate seasonal precipitation;
   -      Conducting environmental monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the remedial action; and
   —      Preparing a supplemental  remedial investigation and feasibility study to identify the extent of ground-water contamination and
          to develop and evaluate appropriate remedial alternatives.

DECLARATION

   The selected remedy is protective  of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective.  This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies  to the maximum extent practicable for this site.  However, because treatment of the  principal threats of
the site was  not found to be practicable, this remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the
remedy.  The size of the landfill and the fact that there are  no on-site hot spots that represent the major sources of contamination
preclude a remedy in which  contaminants could be excavated and  treated effectively.

   Because this remedy will result in  hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based levels, a review  will be conducted within
five years  after commencement of remedial action to ensure  that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection  of human health
and the environment.
Signature (Assistant Administrator/Regional Administrator)            Date
Signature (State Director)

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                    6-10

     6.2.6  Signature and Support Agency Acceptance  of the
            Remedy

     All  ROD Declarations are signed and dated by the Assistant  Administrator
of OSWER or the  Regional Administrator.  When the State is the lead  agency for
developing the ROD,  the State Director should sign the ROD.  When the State is
the support agency,  the State's signature on the ROD is optional  (i.e., the
SMOA, CA, or SSC may or may not provide for such signature).   At a minimum, a
letter specifying concurrence or nonconcurrence from the State should always
be included in the administrative record.  In situations where a Federal
agency other than EPA is the lead agency, that agency should co-sign the ROD
with EPA.

     Although the goal of the interactions between the lead and  support
agencies is to reach mutual agreement on the ROD, there may be limited
instances in which this is not achieved.  In such an event,  the  procedures for
selecting and implementing the remedy are dependent upon whom  has the lead
responsibility for the ROD.  If EPA has the lead, and the State  nonconcurs on
the selected remedy, then EPA has the discretionary authority  to sign the ROD
and continue through the remedial design stage.  EPA cannot proceed  beyond the
remedial  design  stage, however, without the State's cost-share.

     In the event that the State is the lead and EPA does not  concur on the
selected remedy, EPA can assume the lead for the ROD and proceed through the
design stage.  In either case, all information pertaining to the disagreement
should be included in the administrative record.

6.3   KEY ELEMENTS OF THE DECISION SUMMARY

     The Decision Summary, the second and main component of the  ROD, should
provide an overview of the site-specific factors and analysis  that led  to
selection of the remedy for the operable unit or site.  In general,  this
section of the ROD should describe the following:

     •    The history of and contamination at the site;

     •    The alternatives evaluated;

     •    The analysis leading to the final remedy selection;  and

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-11

     •    How the selected remedy satisfies the statutory
          requirements.

Although some of the information presented in the Decision Summary  is  similar
to that presented in the Declaration, this section discusses  the  topics  in
greater detail and provides the rationale  for those "declarations."

     The Decision Summary, to a great extent, should summarize  information
that is already in the administrative record for a site,  particularly  the
RI/FS report.  However,  when information is either not  available  or  is not
satisfactorily addressed in the administrative record,  then the discussion  in
the ROD Summary may need to be more thorough.  The one  completely original
section of the Decision  Summary is the final section which identifies  the
selected remedy and explains how the statutory requirements are satisfied by
that remedy.

     6.3.1   Site  Name.  Location,  and  Description

     This section should be a brief description of basic  information about  the
site location and the actual or potential  threat from the site.  The site
description should include the following information:

     •    Location and address at which the response action is
          occurring, including the town or county, the  State  in
          which the site is located,  and the site's distance  from
          significant locations, such as an intersection  or
          geographical boundary; and

     •    A general overview of the site,  summarizing geographical
          and topographical information such as natural resource
          use, adjacent  land use, distance to nearby populations,
          location in a  floodplain, general surface-water and
          ground-water resources, and surface and subsurface
          features (e.g.,  number and volume of tanks,  lagoons,
          structures, and drums at the site).

Inclusion of maps and charts in this section is encouraged.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-12

     6.3.2  Site History and Enforcement Activities

     This section  should  provide  background  information  on the site's history
and enforcement actions taken  to  date.   Factors that should be addressed
include the following:

     •    The history of  activities  at  the site that have led to the current
          problems,  such  as  manufacturing activities or  disposal of hazardous
          substances (e.g.,  a  key piece of information may be whether a site
          operated  prior  to  or after the effective date(s) of the Resource
          Conservation  and Recovery  Act, i.e., November  19, 1980, or July 26,
          1982; and

     •    The history of  site  investigations  or remedial actions conducted to
          date under CERCLA, as well  as under other environmental authorities,
          such as  RCRA, the  Clean Water Act  (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), or
          State authorities.

     •    The history of  CERCLA enforcement  activities at the site, such as
          whether  a special  notice has  been  issued to PRPs or whether a law
          suit has  been filed  regarding cleanup of the site.

     6.3.3  Highlights of Community Participation

     CERCLA establishes a number  of  public participation activities that the
lead agency must conduct  during a remedial action.  This section should
briefly note how the public  participation requirements in CERCLA section
113(k)(2)(B)(i-v)  were met.  These requirements are established to provide:

     •    Notice to potentially affected persons  and the public, which shall
          be accompanied  by  a  brief  analysis  of the plan and alternative plans
          that were considered [in the  RI/FS  report and  Proposed Plan];

     •    A reasonable opportunity to comment and provide information
          regarding the [proposed] plan [and  RI/FS report]  (i.e., public
          comment  period);

     •    An opportunity  for a public meeting held in the affected area,  in
          accordance with section 117(a)(2)  (relating to public
          participation);

-------
                                                         OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                        6-13

      •     A response  to the significant comments,  criticisms,  and new  data
           that were submitted in either written  or oral presentations;  and

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

      Although this description should be brief,  the lead  agency may  also
include  a description of any other  major public  participation  activities.

      Community response to the selected remedy should not be included  in this
section;  the community's response to the selected remedy  should be addressed
under the community acceptance criterion in the  comparative  analysis section
of the ROD and specific comments responded to  in the Responsiveness  Summary.
The following is an example of the  length and  type of information that should
be included in this section.
     Sample Language for Community Participation Activities:

           The RI/FS and Proposed Plan for the EIO Industrial site were released to the
           public in September 1988.  These two documents were made available to the
           public in both the administrative record and an information repository maintained
           at the EPA Docket Room in Region 4 and at the Nameless Public Library.  The
           notice of availability for these two documents was published in the Nameless
           Advocate on September 28, 1988. A public comment period was held from
           October 3, 1988 through November 5, 1988.  In addition, a public meeting was
           held on October 17, 1988.  At this meeting, representatives from  EPA and the
           Tennessee Pollution Control Board answered questions about problems at the site
           and the remedial alternatives under consideration. A response to the comments
           received during this period  is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is
           part of this Record of Decision.  This decision document presents the selected
           remedial action for the EIO Company Site, in Nameless, Tennessee, chosen in
           accordance with CERCLA,  as amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable,
           the National Contingency Plan.  The decision for this site is based on the
           administrative record.
     6.3.4   Scope and  Role of Operable Unit or Response Action


     This section  should discuss  how the operable unit  or response  action
addressed by the ROD  fits into  the  overall  site strategy  (e.g., "This  ROD
addresses the second  of three planned activities at the site:  the  first
addressed alternative water supply;  this one  addresses  contaminated ground
water;  and a third  will deal with contaminated  soils").   This section  should
focus on  how the response action  fits into  the  overall  strategy for addressing
the principal threat(s) posed by  the conditions at the  site.   The  following

-------
                                                           OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                          6-14

provides sample language for  describing the scope and  role of  an operable unit
or response  action.
      Sample Language for Operable Unit:

           As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the EIO Company Site are
           complex.  As a result, EPA organized the work into three operable units
           (OUs). These are:

                 OU One:    Contamination in the municipal well..
                 OU Two:    Contamination of the ground-water aquifer.
                 OU Three:  Contamination in the soils.

           EPA has already selected remedies for OUs One and Two (the municipal well
           and the contaminated ground water).  The contaminated ground water is a
           principal threat at this site because of the direct ingestion of drinking water
           from wells that contain contaminants above health-based levels. Both of these
           actions are in the remedial design stage. Actual construction is planned to
           begin in March 1990.

           The third OU authorized by this ROD addresses the contaminated soils in the
           lagoon and tank farm area. This area of the site poses the principal threat to
           human health and the environment because of the risks from possible ingestion
           or dermal contact with the soils. Also, there is the threat of contaminant
           migration from the soil into the underlying ground water that is a source of
           drinking water for the local residents.  The purpose  of this response is to
           prevent current or future exposure  to the contaminated soils and to reduce
           contaminant migration into the ground water.  This third operable unit will be
           the final response action for this site.
      6.3.5  Summary of  Site Characteristics

      This  section  should provide an  overview of site  contamination  and the
actual  and potential  routes of exposure posed by the  conditions at  the site.
This  can be accomplished by describing the  assessments made  during  the RI that
characterized the  site, its environment, and the extent of contamination.
Site  characteristics  should include  general  information about the contaminants
at  the site,  potential routes of contaminant migration and routes of exposure,
population and environmental  areas that could be affected by the contaminants
at  the site,  and any  site-specific factors  (e.g.,  fractured  bedrock) that may
affect the remedial  actions at the site.  The following factors should be
highlighted in this  section:

      •     All known  or suspected sources of contamination;

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-15

     •    Types of contamination  and  affected media  (including description of
          the quantity,  types,  and  concentration  of  hazardous substances
          present and  their mobility,  carcinogenicity  or  noncarcinogenicity,
          and volume;  the  lateral and  vertical  extent  of  contamination, and
          -potential  surface-and subsurface  pathways  of .migration); and

     •    All known current risks and  potential routes of human  and
          environmental  exposure.

     The discussion in this section should  present a brief,  comprehensive
overview of the site.   The use  of maps illustrating  the location of
contaminant sources and tables  listing the  types  of  contaminants and
concentrations in various  media are recommended.

     6.3.6   Summary of Site Risks

     The summary of the baseline  risk assessment  in  the ROD  should provide an
indication of the risks to human  health and the environment  that are  or may  be
posed by the conditions at the  site.   The  information  necessary  to write this
summary should be available in  the  risk assessment chapter of the RI/FS
report.  Appropriate summary paragraphs or  tables in the  RI/FS report may be
used directly to serve as  the basis for the ROD discussion of the baseline
risk assessment.  The  RI/FS chapter describing  the risk assessment  (or the
risk assessment document,  if presented separately) should be referenced.

     The information presented  in the summary of  site  risks  should  support the
decision to take remedial  action  when there is  an actual  or  potential threat
of release.  Alternatively, when  no action  will be taken, the data  and
narrative discussion should support that decision.   (See  Chapter 9  for writing
no action RODs.)  The  baseline  risk assessment  should  also describe  the
exposure pathways and  risks, so that the ROD clearly specifies how  risk
reductions resulting from  the remedial alternatives  are related  directly to
the exposure pathways  and  baseline  risks (see section  6.3.8, "Summary of the
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives").

     6.3.6.1   Human  Health Risks

     Only a brief summary  of the information developed in the risk  assessment
should be presented in the ROD.  Information should  be presented in  such a
manner that individuals who are not familiar with the  site can understand  the

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-16

basis for undertaking remedial  action.   A mixture of (1)  text format (e.g.,
for describing the exposure pathways and the risks), (2)  table format (e.g.,
for presenting lists of chemicals and risk numbers), and  (3)  graphics (e.g.,
for illustrating changes in risks over time) may be used  in the summary.
Further guidance-on the summary and presentation of-carcinogenic risk and the
potential for noncarcinogenic effects is currently being  developed in the
revisions to the Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual, which is scheduled
for publication in the fall of 1989.

     The discussion of risks in the ROD should parallel the major areas that
are discussed in the sections of the risk assessment:   contaminant
identification, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment,  and risk
characterization.   The primary focus should be on those exposure pathways and
contaminants found to pose actual or potential threats to human health and the
environment.

     Contaminant identification information should include brief descriptions
of the following :

     •    The media of concern (e.g., soils, ground water);

     •    The contaminants of concern in each medium;  and

     •    The concentrations of the chemicals of concern  on which the risk
          assessment was based (e.g., mean, maximum, and  minimum).

     Exposure assessment information should include brief discussions of the
following:

     •    The exposure pathways (e.g., ingestion of contaminated ground water,
          inhalation of volatiles);

     •    The potentially exposed population(s) (e.g., adults living on-site,
          children playing on-site);

     •    The monitoring or modeling data and assumptions used to characterize
          exposure point concentrations; and

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-17

     •    The major assumptions about exposure frequency and duration that
          were included in the exposure assessment (e.g.,  180 days/year,  70
          years).

In many cases, the. exposure assessment-in ihe RI/FS report includes reasonable
maximum estimates for both current and future exposure scenarios.   When this
information is available,  descriptions of current and future exposures should
be included in the ROD.

     Toxicity assessment information should include the following:

     •    The cancer potency factors for contaminants of concern that are
          carcinogens;

     •    The reference doses for the contaminants of concern that  have
          noncarcinogenic effects; and

     •    A brief explanation of the toxicity information.

     The sample language in this guidance should be included in the ROD to
explain the derivation and use of the cancer potency factors and reference
doses.

     Risk characterization information should include the following for each
land-use scenario (e.g., current and future land use):

     •    The quantified carcinogenic risks of each containment of concern in
          each exposure medium for each exposure pathway;

     •    The combined carcinogenic risks reflecting all contaminants and
          pathways reasonably expected to affect a given population (e.g.,
          children playing at a residence who may be exposed through soil
          ingestion and through drinking local ground water);

     •    The potential for noncarcinogenic effects as identified by the
          hazard quotient for each contaminant of concern in each exposure
          medium for each exposure pathway;

-------
                                                             OSWER  Directive 9355.3-02
                                          6-18
     Sample Language for Toxicity Assessment Summary:

           Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic
           Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with
           exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals.  CPFs, which are expressed hi
           units of (mg/kg-day)  , are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential
           carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess
           lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level. The term
           "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from
           the CPF.  Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer
           risk highly unlikely.  Cancer potency factors are derived from the results of
           human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-
           human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been applied.

           Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the
           potential for  adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals exhibiting
           noncarcinogenic effects.  RfDs, which  are expressed in units  of mg/kg-day, are
           estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels for humans, including sensitive
           individuals.  Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g.,
           the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated  drinking water) can be
           compared to  the RfD. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological studies
           or animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been  applied (e.g., to
           account for the use of animal data to  predict effects on humans).  These
           uncertainty factors help ensure that  the RfDs will not underestimate the
           potential for  adverse noncarcinogenic  effects to occur.
      •     The combined potential  for  noncarcinogenic effects, as  expressed by
           hazard  indices  (HI),  reflect  reasonable  contaminant and exposure
           pathway combinations  for specific  population groups;

      •     A  brief explanation of the  meaning of both the  risk characterization
           number  and qualitative statements;

      •     A  discussion of significant sources of uncertainty inherent  in this
           risk assessment; and

      •     Risk assessment conclusions,  based on data presented  and any other
           facts that the  decisionmaker should be made aware of  that may affect
           risk to human  health  and the environment at sites  (e.g., the
           presence of B2  carcinogens  without quantitative toxicity numbers  for
           risk characterization).

      The following language should be included in  the ROD to explain  how
cancer  and noncancer risks are  characterized in the baseline risk assessment.

-------
                                                           OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                         6-19
      Sample Language for Risk Characterization Summary:

           Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the intake level with
           the cancer potency factor. These risks are probabilities that are generally
           expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1x10   or 1E-6). An excess lifetime
           cancer risk of 1x10   indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an individual
           has a one in one million chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related
           exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific exposure
           conditions at a site.

           Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a
           single medium is expressed as the hazard quotient (HQ) (or the ratio of the
           estimated intake derived from the contaminant concentration in a given
           medium to the contaminant's  reference dose). By adding the HQs for all
           contaminants within a medium or across all media to which a  given population
           may reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated.  The HI
           provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential significance  of
           multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium  or across media.
      As discussed previously, a  combination  of textual, tabular,  and graphic
presentations  of risk  information  is encouraged.

      6.3.6.2  Environmental  Risks

      In addition to human health risks, the  risks to  the environment that were
considered in  the RI/FS  should also be addressed in the ROD.   Procedures for
addressing environmental  risks are not as  standardized as they are for  human
health  risk  assessment.   Consequently, the appropriate level  of detail  to
describe the environmental  evaluation in the ROD is also less standardized.
In summary,  the  level  of detail  of the environmental  evaluation should  be the
guide for the  amount of  information that should be included  in the ROD.   The
rule  of thumb  is to include only the information from the environmental
evaluation that  is necessary to  help the decisionmaker address environmental
concerns at  the  site.  At the very least,  the following points should be
addressed:

      •     Are  any critical  habitats affected by site  contamination?

      •     Are  any endangered species or habitats of endangered species
           affected by  site  contaminants?

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                     6-20

     The Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Environmental  Evaluation
Manual (OSWER Directive 9285.7-01,  March 1989}  provides additional  information
about the environmental evaluation.

     In addition, for^all RODs except-those selecting "no action,"  the
"Summary of Site Risks" section of the Decision Summary should conclude with
the same statement contained in the "Assessment of the Site"  section of the
Declaration, which states the following:

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

     6.3.7   Description of Alternatives

     This section provides a concise description of how each  alternative  would
address the contamination at the-site or operable unit from the beginning of
the remedy to the completion of site activities.  This description  should
explain the treatment and/or engineering (e.g., containment)  components of
each alternative as they logically occur in the proposed remediation process.
When describing a particular treatment or containment alternative,  the general
treatment family or containment objectives could be described.  Specific
process options within those categories should be described if there is
confidence that the options will be used.  For example, an alternative should
be described as employing thermal destruction rather than rotary kiln
incineration or infrared incineration.  In the same way, a containment option
that employs a RCRA Subtitle C cap should specify the objectives of the cap
(e.g., reducing the permeability by covering the site with an impermeable
layer), rather than the specific type of liner that could achieve that
objective (e.g., synthetic liner, PVC).

     The flow chart in Figure 6-1 provides an illustration of the details
outlined in Section 6.3.8 that should be included in these descriptions,  and
Exhibit 6-4 lists the details that should be described for each remedy.
Appendix C contains a sample write-up of a remedial alternative that

-------
                                                   6-21
                                                 FIGURE 6-1
                     Illustration of Components of Alternatives to be Described


11,000yd'
Contaminated
Soil

In

Lagoon/Tank
Farm Area




^^
^^



Excavation
of 7.500 yd'of

VOC-
Contamlnated
hot spots


^^
P»-




Low

Temperature
Volatilization


toll
^^
^*"


1

Stabl
h

Lagoo
Farnr

7,500 yd VOC-
 Contamlnated
 Hot Spots
  TCE.   140 ppm
  Benzene:  40 ppm
        3
3,500 yd heavy
 metal- contaminated
 Soils
   Pb: 30 ppm
   Cd: 17 ppm
    • 3
   Cr: 12 ppm
  -3
10 carcinogenic
 risk level
• Amount determined
   by fate and
   transport modeling
   and
• Sampling and
   analysis during
   excavation process
       VoUIII*
       Org •€*!•«
Activated

 Carbon

Canisters
                             I
      (Illolxwy
                                                 Air

                                              Emissions
Off-Site

Subtitle C

Disposal
                                                                                              Landfill
                                                                                             Closure of
                                                                                            Lagoon/Tank
                                                                                             Farm Area
• Long-Term O&M
  — Cap Integrity
  -- GW Monitoring
• Exposure Level at 10
• Deed Restrictions
• Capital Costs $4.7M
• Annual O&M $41,000

-------
                                                              OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                          6-22
                                   EXHIBIT 6-4

                Description of Details for  Each  Remedy
   Treatment components.  Describe the following, as appropriate:

   -  contaminated media addressed;
   —  treatment technologies (e.g., thermal destruction) that will be used;
   —  type and volume of waste treated;
   —  process sizing; and
   —  primary treatment levels (e.g., BDAT, percentage or order of magnitude of reductions
      expected).

   Containment or storage components.  Describe the following,  as appropriate:

   ~  type of storage (e.g., landfill, tank,  surface impoundment, containers);
   —  type of closure that will be implemented (RCRA Subtitle C clean closure,  landfill closure,
      Subtitle D solid waste closure);
   ~  type and quantity of waste to  be treated or stored; and
   —  quantity of untreated waste and treatment residuals to be left in place and degree of risk
      posed by such waste (prior to and  following containment).

   Ground-water component. Describe the following, as appropriate:

   -  ground-water classification (e.g., Class I, II, or  III);
   ~  cleanup levels;
   —  area of attainment; and
   —  restoration timeframe.

   General components.  Describe the following, as appropriate,  for each of the  three previous
   components:

   -  contaminated media addressed (and physical  location at  the site);
   —  initial risk;
   --  risk reduction;
   —  whether treatability testing has been or will be conducted;
   —  implementation requirements;
   —  institutional controls;
   —  residual levels (e.g., delisting,  BDAT); and
   ~  assumptions, limitations, uncertainties.

   The major ARARs. risk-based levels,  and other "to be considereds"  (TBCs^ being met/utilized
   for the specific components of the waste management process.*

   — The description should summarize how the specific components of the waste management
     approach will comply with the major ARARs, as well as briefly describe why the standard
     is applicable or relevant and appropriate (e.g., placing a RCRA characteristic waste, thus
     RCRA closure is applicable).
     TBCs are non-promulgated advisories, criteria, or guidance issued by Federal or State governments that are not
legally enforceable standards.  TBCs may also include proposed regulations.  Before the lead agency proposes to utiliz
a TBC, it should obtain the support agency's agreement on the appropriateness of the TBC(s).

-------
                                                        OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                       6-23

illustrates  the level of detail  appropriate for this  section.2  In particular,
it should  be noted that the description should incorporate the major  ARARs
associated with a remedial alternative in laying  out  exactly how the  waste
will be  handled.   Exhibit 6-5  lists the major Federal  ARARs that typically may
apply to Superfund remedies and  may need to be discussed in describing
alternatives.

     By  providing a comprehensive description of  the  alternatives  in  this
section, the comparative analysis of alternatives (which is the next  section
of the ROD)  can focus on highlighting the differences  or similarities among
alternatives with respect to the nine evaluation  criteria (see Section  6.3.8,
"Summary of  Comparative Analysis of Alternatives").   In addition,  this  initial
description  of the selected remedy should provide engineering details that
will support the  remedial design phase.

     The description also should outline the performance parameters of  each
alternative,  such as the concentration levels of  contaminants that will  remain
on site  without management, the  types of long-term management controls  that
will be  used (e.g., permeable  cap), and the MCLs  or other levels to be
attained in  remediated ground  water.

     6.3.8  Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

     This  section should provide the basis for determining which alternative
provides the "best balance" of tradeoffs with respect  to the following  nine
evaluation criteria:

Threshold  Criteria           1)  Overall protection of  human health and  the
                                  environment; and
                              2)  Compliance with applicable or relevant  and
                                  appropriate requirements.
    o
     A ROD will often contain descriptions of separate remedies for addressing the contaminated
ground water and the source of contamination at the site. An effective way of presenting the alternatives
for each of these pathways would be to discuss the ground-water alternatives separately from the source-
control alternatives.  By organizing the description of alternatives in this manner, a more comprehensive
understanding can be gained of the options analyzed for remediating each of these pathways. Where
there are components of the ground-water alternatives that are interrelated with a specific source-control
alternative, these should be  noted.

-------
                                                        OSWER  Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-24
                               EXHIBIT  6-5

                   Federal ARARs  that May Apply
                    to Superfund  Remedial Actions
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

  ~ Maximum Containment Levels (MCLs)
  - MCL Goals (MCLGs)

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

  ~ Closure (i.e., landfill or clean closure)
  — Subpart F Ground-Water Monitoring (including post-closure care)
  ~ Location Standards
  — Minimum Technology
  ~ Subpart O Incineration
  — Land Disposal Restrictions
  ~ Unit-Specific Design and Operating Standards (e.g., for tanks, containers)

• RCRA Subtitle D (Solid Waste Requirements)

• Clean Water Act

  - Federal Water Quality Criteria (FWQC)
  - Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW) standards
  -- Effluent Limitations and Guidelines
  ~ Requirements for Dredge and Fill Activities

• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

  — Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) standards

• Clean Air Act (CAA)

  — National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQs)
  -- State Implementation Plan (SIP)

• State ARARs.

-------
                                                      OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                      6-25

Primary Balancing Criteria   3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence;
                             4) Reduction of  toxicity,  mobility,  or volume
                                through treatment;
                             5) Short-term effectiveness;
                             6) Implementability; and
                             7) Cost.

Modifying Criteria           8) State/support agency acceptance;  and
                             9) Community acceptance.

     This analysis should summarize  the comparative analysis of alternatives
presented in the detailed analysis section of the  RI/FS report.  The RI/FS
guidance contains additional information  on the subfactors included in each of
the nine criteria.   (These  subfactors are also reflected in Exhibit 2-2 in
this guidance and in Appendix  B.)  These  factors should be addressed, when
appropriate, in describing  and evaluating alternatives.  The comparative
analysis provides the basis  for explaining how the  selected remedy satisfies
the statutory requirements  described in section 6.3.10 (specifically, the
cost-effectiveness and utilization of permanent solutions and treatment to the
maximum extent practicable  ["MEP"] findings).

     The major objective of this  section  of the ROD is to evaluate the
relative performance of the  alternatives  with respect  to the criteria so that
the advantages and disadvantages  associated with each  cleanup option are
clearly understood.  The most  effective way of organizing this analysis is to
present a series of paragraphs headed by  each criterion.  Under each
criterion, the alternative  that performs  best in that  category is discussed
first, with the other options  discussed in sequence from most to least
advantageous.3  The worksheets  in Appendix B  may be used to assist in
preparing the comparative analysis summary.

     6.3.9  The  Selected  Remedy

     The remainder of the Decision Summary focuses  on  the selected remedy.
This section of the ROD should identify and summarize  the major treatment
components of the selected  remedy, as well as any  engineering controls (e.g.,
     A symbolic ranking method without an accompanying narrative, such as a "+" for the "best"
alternative and a "-" for the lower ranking alternative, is discouraged.  Although this could be used in a
table, the symbols are not substitutes for the narrative comparison.

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-26

containment) or institutional  controls that will  be part of the remedy.   In
addition, this section of the  ROD should briefly  discuss the following:

     •    The remediation goals and corresponding risk level(s) to be attained
          at the conclus-ion of ttie response action and the points of
          compliance for the media being addressed (e.g., ground water); and

     •    The lead agency's basis for the remediation goals (e.g., ARARs,  risk
          calculation).

     Where remediation goals specify carcinogenic risk levels (e.g.,
1 x 10"6), the basis for  the selection of that level  (e.g.,  technical,
uncertainty, or exposure factors) should be explained briefly.  If more than
one area at the site is being  addressed (e.g.,  treatment and landfill ing of
residuals),  this section of the ROD should identify the remediation goals for
each area.  A table may be included in this section of the ROD to summarize
the remediation goals for each area or medium.

     The discussion of the selected remedy in this section of the ROD should
expand upon the details of the remedy from the Description of Alternatives
discussed in section 6.3.7 of  this guidance.  One aspect of the selected
remedy that should be described in detail is the  estimated costs of the
remedial action.  The capital  costs of each major treatment and containment
component of the selected remedy should be identified, along with an
indication of the volume of material that each component will address and the
estimated unit costs.  Contingencies should also  be listed.  Operation and
maintenance cost should be stated in terms of annual costs, and the total net
present value should be presented.  Exhibit 6-6 illustrates the type of cost
information to be included for the remedy outlined in Figure 6-1.  This
section of the ROD should mention that some changes may be made to the remedy
as a result of the remedial design and construction processes.  The ROD should
include a clear statement that such changes, in general, reflect modifications
resulting from the engineering design process.

-------
                                                       OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                     6-27
                              EXHIBIT 6-6

       Example Cost Summary for the  Selected Remedy
                               Estimated Costs of
                                Selected Remedy
                                         7,500

                                        11,500



                                        11,000
Capital Costs;


Treatment Component

 1.    Low temperature volatilization/
      stabilization

 2.    Treatment/disposal of off-gases

Containment Component

 1.    Landfill closure of residuals
          Contingencies @ 20%
Operation and Maintenance Cost:

 1.    Landfill maintenance and ground
      water monitoring around unit
TOTAL COSTS

(Net Present Value calculated using a 5% discount value)
                                                                   Estimated
                                     Cubic Yards     Cost per CY       Cost
$360

$ 60



$50
$2,700,000

  660,000



  550.000

$3,910,000

  790.000

$4,700,000


Annual Cost


$41,000




$5,320,780

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                     6-28

     In addition to the elements recommended in the Description  of
Alternatives section, the following elements of the selected remedy should  be
addressed, as appropriate,  for ground-water remedies:   expected  pumping  and
flow rates; number of extraction wells; treatment processes; methods of
control for cross-media impacts; gradient control system;  and performance
evaluations and schedule.

     6.3.10  Statutory Determinations

     Once the selected remedy has been identified, the ROD Decision Summary
should  conclude with a description of how the selected remedy meets the
statutory requirements of CERCLA section 121.  The remedy  selected by the  lead
agency, in consultation with the support agency, must:

     •    Be protective of human health and the environment;

     •    Comply with ARARs (or justify an ARAR waiver);

     •    Be cost-effective;

     •    Utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment  technologies
          or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable;
          and

     •    Satisfy the preference for treatment that reduces toxicity,
          mobility, or volume as a principal element,  OR provide an
          explanation as to why this preference is not satisfied.

     A brief, site-specific description of how the selected remedy satisfies
each of the statutory requirements should be provided in this section of the
ROD.  The statutory requirements and the key information that should be
summarized for each finding are highlighted in Appendix D of this guidance.

     Protection of Human Health and the Environment:  This section of the ROD
should describe how the selected remedy will provide adequate protection of
human health and the environment through treatment, engineering controls,
and/or institutional controls.  Specifically, the remedy should be described
in terms of how the existing or potential risks posed by the site or operable
unit through each pathway will be eliminated, reduced, or controlled by the
response action.  This discussion should also indicate that exposure levels

-------
                                                        OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                       6-29

will be reduced to within the  10~A to 10"7 range within  which EPA manages
carcinogenic  risk and that the Hazard Indices for non-carcinogens will  be  less
than one.   Finally, this discussion  should reflect that the implementation of
the selected  remedy will not pose  unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media
impacts.

     Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs):*  This  section of the ROD should:

     •     State whether the selected remedy will comply with all Federal  and
           any more stringent State ARARs or whether  any ARAR waiver will  be
           used.   If a waiver is invoked, it should be  identified and  a
           justification provided;

     •     List and briefly describe  the ARARs that will be attained by  the
           selected remedy.  This  list should be organized according to
           chemical-specific, location-specific, and  action-specific ARARs.
           Also,  applicable requirements should be distinguished from  the
           relevant and appropriate requirements for  the RCRA land disposal
           restrictions and closure requirements, SDWA  MCLs, and other
           requirements, as necessary; and

     •     List and briefly describe  the TBCs (e.g.,  advisories, criteria,  and
           guidances) being utilized  and the reason for their use.5

     Exhibit  6-7 illustrates the  level  of detail in  which Federal and State
ARARs should  be described for documentation of the selected remedy.
     Other available information that does not constitute an ARAR (e.g., advisories, criteria, and
guidance) may be considered in the analysis if it helps to ensure protectiveness or is otherwise appropriate
for use in a specific alternative. These To-Be-Considered materials should be included in the description
if the lead and support agencies agree that their inclusion is appropriate.

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

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                 6-30
                           EXHIBIT 6-7


 Examples  of  Federal  and  State ARAR Descriptions




Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

      SDWA MCL for benzene (5.0 x 10"3 mg/1) in the ground-water aquifer.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

      40 CFR 264.111 Subpart G (Closure Performance Standards) for closure
      with no post-closure care (i.e., clean closure).

      40 CFR 264.91 - 100 Subpart F, which  specifies ground-water
      monitoring requirements for closure of a unit with waste in place.

      40 CFR 264.18(b), which specifies that  hazardous waste treatment,
      storage, or disposal facilities constructed within the  100-year
      floodplain must be designed, constructed, operated,  and maintained
      to avoid washout.

      RCRA design and operating requirements in Subpart N 40 CFR
      264.301, which specify minimum technology for construction of a new
      unit, including a double liner and leachate collection system.

      RCRA Subpart O requirements for incineration of  hazardous waste  in
      40 CFR 264.340 through 264.34 and 264.35.

      RCRA Land  Disposal Restrictions in 40 CFR 268 are applicable and
      will be achieved by using BOAT (rotary kiln incineration and
      stabilization), which  is specified in the requirements for nonwastewaters
      containing K001 waste. Treatment levels specified for the constituents
      pyrene and toluene will be achieved.

Clean Water Act (CWA)

      CWA Ambient Water Quality Criteria  for Protection of Human Health
      with Water and Fish Ingestion of 3.5 mg/1 for phenol in the receiving
      stream.

      Sound County Sanitary Authority Pretreatment Standard  of .005 ppb for
      xylene in the discharge to the sanitary  sewer system.

      CWA requirement for Best Available Technology will be achieved using
      hydroxide precipitation and sedimentation for treatment of metal waste.
      Discharge limits will be established using BPJ during remedial design.

      CWA 404 requirements for discharge of dredged material, which specify
      minimization  of adverse impacts.

-------
                                                        OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                       6-31

     The  following is an  example of how TBCs can be summarized.6
     Sample Language for TBCs:

           In implementing the selected remedy, EPA and the State have agreed to
           consider a number of procedures that are not legally binding.  These include
           the guidance on designing RCRA caps (Draft RCRA Guidance Document.
           Landfill Design, Liner Systems and Final Cover, issued June 1982) and posting
           of a deed notice at the site  after the remedial action has been completed.
           The guidance on designing RCRA caps includes specifications to be followed
           in constructing and maintaining a RCRA cap. Deed restrictions are
           institutional controls that will be enforced by the local government to ensure
           that the RCRA cap is not disturbed.
     For  some remedies, more lengthy discussion of a  statute or regulation is
necessary.   For example,  the selected remedy could be  one that complies  with
the relevant and appropriate requirements  of both clean  closure and  landfill
closure under RCRA to fashion an "alternate" closure  or  a remedy for which
land disposal restrictions  are applicable  and a treatability variance is being
obtained.

     Cost-Effectiveness:   In this section,  the lead agency should verify that
the selected remedy affords overall effectiveness proportional to its costs.
This section should state briefly how the  selected remedy appears to be  cost-
effective,  when the overall relationship  between cost  and effectiveness  is
compared  to the cost/effectiveness relationship among  the other alternatives.

     Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative  Treatment (or Resource
Recovery) Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP):  This section
describes the rationale for the remedy  selected, explaining how the  remedy
provides  the best balance of tradeoffs  among the alternatives with respect to
the evaluation criteria,  particularly the  five primary balancing criteria.
The summary worksheets for  conducting the  comparative  analysis, included in
Appendix  B  of this guidance, could be used in discussing this determination.
     Key TBC's (those fundamental to the selected remedy) should be justified in the ROD.  If the
validity of TBCs is challenged, the justification for use of the TBC should also be provided in the
Responsiveness Summary (see Section 6.4).

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-32

     The final remedy is selected among the protective, ARAR-compliant (or
waiver-worthy) alternatives.   The selection is based on a determination of
which option best balances the tradeoffs among the alternatives as they relate
primarily to:  long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity,
mobility, or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness;
implementability; and cost.  Those criteria that distinguish the alternatives
will be the major tradeoffs to be balanced in the selection decision.   To the
extent that alternatives are comparable with respect to a particular criterion
(e.g., all options provide similar degrees of long-term effectiveness), that
criterion is not a decisive factor in the selection process.  The degree to
which each alterative has State/support agency and community acceptance also
is a factor considered in the decision, along with the primary tradeoffs.

     This section of the ROD should discuss why the selected remedy is
believed to best meet the evaluation criteria, compared to the other
alternatives, and why it is the most appropriate solution for the site.  In
identifying the alternative that provides the best balance of tradeoffs, the
decisionmaker also is judging the alternative to be the one that utilizes
permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable for that site.

     The discussion in this section should be organized as follows:

     •    Provide a general statement that the selected remedy utilizes
          permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum extent
          practicable;

     •    Highlight tradeoffs among alternatives related to the five primary
          balancing criteria, which should be discussed in this order:

               long-term effectiveness and permanence,
               reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment,
               short-term effectiveness,
               implementability, and
               cost;

     •    Discuss which of the five criteria were the most decisive factors in
          the selection decision; and

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-33

     •    Describe how State and community acceptance were factored into the
          decision making process.

     The ROD should always make the affirmative finding that the selected
remedy meets the statutory requirement to utilize permanent solutions and
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable,  even if it is a
containment remedy.  In this situation, the extent of treatment found to be
practicable is no treatment at all.  Therefore, where the  selected remedy does
not employ any treatment or resource recovery technologies, the explanation of
the rationale used in the decision should include the reasons for finding
treatment to be impracticable.

     Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element:  In  addition to the four
statutory mandates discussed previously, the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element also should be addressed.  In writing the
ROD, the manner in which the preference is addressed will  depend upon whether
the selected remedy uses treatment to address the principal threat(s) posed by
the site.  A discussion of whether the selected remedy satisfies the statutory
preference should be included.  This summary should describe the principal
threats posed by the site (e.g., hot spots in a landfill or a contaminated
ground-water plume) and the treatment methods that will be used to address
these.

     If the remedy selected does not satisfy the statutory preference, the ROD
should explain why it does not do so.  In some cases, this explanation will
involve a statement of why treatment of the principal threat(s) is not
practicable.  In the case of operable units of very limited scope (e.g.,
control of plume migration), the discussion should include a statement that
the operable unit will not definitively address any of the principal threats
posed by the site and demonstrate how past actions did, or future actions
will, address those threats.

     6.3.11   Documentation of  Significant Changes

     To fulfill  the requirements of CERCLA section 117(b), the ROD should
document and discuss the reasons for any significant changes made to the
selected remedy from the time the Proposed Plan and RI/FS  report were released
for public comment to the final selection of the remedy (see Chapter 5 for a
complete discussion on pre-ROD significant changes).

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                    6-34

     The documentation  of  significant changes can be organized in the ROD in
one of two ways,  depending upon  the  nature of the changes.  Where the
significant change affects a  feature of the preferred alternative (the
selected remedy in the  ROD),  the documentation should appear at the end of the
ROD.  Where the significant change entails changing from the preferred
alternative to another  alternative discussed in the Proposed Plan, this should
be documented prior to  he  description of alternatives.

     This section of the ROD  should  identify the preferred alternative from
the Proposed Plan and should  indicate whether any significant changes were
made.  If significant changes were made, the reasons for those changes should
be explained.  If a significant  change was made that required the issuance of
a revised Proposed Plan and the  announcement of a new public comment period,
the activities performed in compliance with these requirements should be
summarized as well.

     Exhibit 6-8 includes  examples of the three different types of discussions
that generally could be included in  this section of the ROD.  These examples
were developed from information  presented in the sample Proposed Plan in
Appendix A of this guidance.  The first example is a case in which no
significant changes are made. The second is a case in which a significant
change is made that is  a logical outgrowth of the information originally
presented in the Proposed  Plan and the RI/FS report.  In this second case, the
only procedural requirement is to discuss the change in this section of the
ROD.  The final example is a  case in which a significant change is made that
is not a logical  outgrowth of the information in the RI/FS and the Proposed
Plan.  This third example  describes  the additional public participation
activities that should  be  conducted  after the first Proposed Plan has been
released for public comment.

6.4  THE RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

     The Responsiveness Summary  is the third component of the ROD, and it
serves several purposes.   First, it  provides the lead agency decisionmakers
with information about  community preferences regarding both the remedial
alternatives and general concerns about the site.  Second, it demonstrates how
public comments were integrated  into the decision-making process.  Third, it
allows EPA to respond to comments "on the record."  This means that a court
reviewing the remedy will  look to see whether EPA has provided a reasonable
response to comments in the record,  and will not allow new presentation of

-------
                                                                  OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                               6-35
                                        EXHIBIT 6-8

                         Three Examples  of  Documentation
                                  of Significant Changes
Example One: No Significant Changes

      The Proposed Plan for the EIO site was released for public comment in September 1988.  The
Proposed Plan identified Alternative 4, excavation and on-site volatilization of VOCs, as the preferred
alternative. EPA reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the public comment period.
Upon review  of these comments, it was determined that no significant changes to the remedy, as  it was
originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.

Example Two: Significant Change Requiring Only Documentation in the ROD

      The Proposed Plan was released for public comment in September 1988. The Proposed Plan
identified Alternative 4, excavation and on*site volatilization of VOCs, as the preferred alternative.  One of
the other alternatives (Alternative 6) presented in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS involved on-site
incineration and  solidification of wastes.  The original preference for Alternative 4 was based in part on
the fact that a mobile incinerator  was not readily available  to implement Alternative 6.  During the public
comment period, however, a mobile incinerator became available. As a result, EPA, in consultation with
the Tennessee Pollution Control Board, decided to select the on-site incineration remedy.  On-site
incineration is a  more comprehensive, reliable treatment-based remedy for the particular waste at the EIO
site than is the volatilization remedy originally preferred.

Example Three;  Significant Change Requiring a New Public Comment Period

      A Proposed Plan for the EIO site was released  for public comment in June 1988.  The Plan
identified Alternative 4, excavation and on-site volatilization of VOCs, as the preferred alternative.  During
the public comment period, the results of remedial activities at another site with contamination problems
similar to those at  the EIO site indicated that an alternative treatment technology, in-situ vitrification,
could be used successfully on contaminants similar to those at the EIO site.  Further analysis of the
vitrification alternative indicated that fewer short-term risks would be associated with it than with the
volatilization alternative, and that  the long-term effectiveness of vitrification would be greater, as the
solidified matrix  is  expected to have a longer effective life than a RCRA landfill.  The information
supporting this determination is available in the administrative record file.

      As a result of this new information, EPA decided to select in-situ vitrification as the new preferred
alternative for cleaning up the EIO site.  The Tennessee Pollution Control Board  concurred with this
decision.  In compliance with statutory requirements for ensuring the public has the opportunity to
comment on major remedy selection decisions, a new Proposed Plan was prepared presenting in-situ
vitrification as the preferred alternative.  The second Plan was made available to the public in September
1988. No significant comments were received during the  second public comment period, and no significant
changes have been made to the selected remedy.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-36

evidence on those issues.   An  adequate responsiveness summary is essential in
defending RODs in judicial  proceedings.

     To serve these purposes,  the  Responsiveness Summary should be a concise
and complete summary of significant  comments received from the public,
including PRPs,  during the  public  comment period that is required by CERCLA
section 117.  The summary  should be  accompanied by the lead agency's responses
to these comments.  Responses  should be  clear, accurate, and carefully written
by the OSC or RPM, and/or  by any other persons, as necessary, to ensure the
best response.  For example, if the  validity of a key TBC is challenged during
public comment,  EPA Headquarters should  be consulted to aid in preparing the
justitification  for use of  the TBC in the Responsiveness Summary.

     When general policy matters are discussed in the Responsiveness Summary,
it is recommended that they be brought to management's attention prior to the
release of the ROD.  If the lead agency  determines that a point-by-point
response to a set of comments  is warranted, the comment response document
should be prepared as a separate document.  In this situation, a summary of
these comments with the lead agency's response should be included in the
Responsiveness Summary as  well.

     Guidance on preparing  Responsiveness Summaries is available in "Community
Relations in Superfund: A Handbook," (OSWER Directive 9230.0-3B, June 1988).
This Handbook details the  process  of preparing the Summary and includes a
sample Responsiveness Summary.

6.5   SUBMITTING RODS TO EPA HEADQUARTERS

     It is important that  all  signed RODs be sent to Headquarters as soon as
possible after they are signed.  A completely assembled, clear, legible copy
of the ROD with  a signed signature page  should be forward by the RPM, or other
designated individual to:

          Chief, Remedial  Planning and Response Branch
          Hazardous Site Control Division  (OS-220)
          Office of Emergency  and  Remedial Response, OSWER
          U.S. EPA
          401 M Street, S.W.
          Washington, D.C.   20460

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     6-37

This process may be more efficient if one individual coordinates this effort
in the Regional office (e.g., the administrative record coordinator).
Appendix E describes the process of submitting RODs and other decision
documents to Headquarters.

-------
                                                   OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                               CHAPTER 7

   THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE RECORD OF DECISION
     This chapter describes the roles and responsibilities of the lead and
support agencies in developing the ROD.   In this  chapter procedures to
facilitate timely preparation, review, and final  approval of the ROD are
presented, as  well as dispute resolution procedures  and the role of other
Federal agencies in cleanup activities at Federal  facilities.

7.1  OVERVIEW

     As with the Proposed Plan, the lead agency has  the responsibility for
preparing the  ROD and coordinating with  the support  agency(ies) and other lead
agency program offices to attain concurrence on the  selected remedy.
Typically, the lead agency that prepares the RI/FS report and the Proposed
Plan will prepare the ROD, although this may vary from site to site.  In many
cases, EPA is  the lead agency and prepares the ROD;  however, the State can
prepare the ROD either when the State is designated  the lead agency in the
SMOA, CA, or SSC or when there is a State-lead enforcement action at an NPL
site.  Federal  agencies should prepare RODs for Federal facilities under their
jurisdiction,  consistent with the terms  of their  lAGs.

     Although  the roles of EPA, the State, and other Federal agencies may vary
from site to site, EPA retains the final authority for selecting all response
actions pursuant to CERCLA sections 104, 106,  120, and 122.

     7.1.1  State Preparation of the ROD

     The. State should recommend a remedy for EPA  concurrence and adoption for
cases in which EPA and the State designate that State as the lead agency in
the SMOA.  Through the annual planning process, EPA  and the State should
designate those sites for which the State should  prepare the ROD for EPA
concurrence and adoption.

     As indicated in the proposed revisions to the NCP, EPA intends to
implement selectively the process of State preparation of RODs, giving the
State the lead when both of the following conditions are met:

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     7-2

     •    The circumstances at a particular site warrant less EPA
          and more  State  involvement; and

     •    The State has demonstrated  its ability to conduct remedial
          actions  in an effective and responsible manner.

When the State is  the lead agency for developing the RI/FS at a Fund-financed
site, if agreed to  by EPA, the State  should prepare the Proposed Plan, publish
the notice of availability, prepare the  Responsiveness Summary, and develop
the ROD.  When the  State  has  the responsibility for preparing the ROD, the
State should recommend a  remedy to EPA.  EPA and the State then sign the ROD.
In cases such as this one, EPA retains final authority over remedy selection
although the State  prepared the ROD.

     7.1.2   Remedy Selection  for State-Lead  Enforcement Actions

     Not every remedial activity taken at NPL sites are conducted under the
authority of CERCLA sections  104, 106 or 122.  The State may take action at an
NPL site under its  own remedial authority.  This kind of action is commonly
referred to as a State-lead enforcement  action.

     The degree of EPA involvement in the remedy selection process at these
sites is discretionary and should be  established between EPA and the State in
the SMOA,  CA, or SSC.  EPA may choose to concur or nonconcur with a remedy
selected for such a site  only when the SMOA, CA, or SSC specified such a role
for EPA.  Further guidance on State-lead enforcement actions will be available
in the forthcoming Interim Final Guidance Package  on Funding CERCLA State
Enforcement Actions at NPL Sites.

     7.1.3   Roles and  Responsibilities  of  Other  Federal Agencies

     Executive Order 12580 delegates  the authority for carrying out the
requirements of CERCLA sections 117(a) and  (c) to  Federal  agencies with
Federal facilities under  their jurisdiction.  A Federal agency, therefore, can
issue the Proposed Plan.   The agreement  among the  Federal  agency, EPA, and,  in
many cases, the State should  establish the  responsibilities of each party  for
preparation of the ROD.

     For sites under its  jurisdiction, a Federal agency  has the lead
responsibility for preparing  the  draft ROD  in  accordance with  Chapters 6  and,

-------
                                                   OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     7-3

when appropriate, Chapter 9 of this guidance,  and  for carrying out the lead
agency responsibilities specified in this chapter.  The Federal agency should
prepare the draft ROD, taking into consideration new information and comments
received during  the public comment period,  and should submit the draft ROD to
EPA (and,  where  designated in the IAG, the State)  for EPA's written approval.
The Regional  or  Assistant Administrators' signatures constitute final EPA
"adoption" of the ROD.

     The Federal agency should publish a notice of availability pursuant to
CERCLA section 117(d) and make the ROD available to the public before
beginning the response action.  In a limited number of cases, the Federal
agency, EPA,  or  the State involved in a remedial action will not be able to
reach agreement  on the remedial approach for a site.  If the parties are
unable to reach  agreement on the draft ROD even after a dispute resolution
process has been followed, EPA should select the remedial action.

7.2  ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES  OF LEAD AGENCY AND
     SUPPORT AGENCY

     The responsibilities outlined below for the lead and support agency apply
to EPA, the State, or another Federal agency except where specifically noted.

     7.2.1  Lead Agency

     The lead agency's responsibilities in the ROD development process include
the following (see Figure 7-1):

     •    Preparing the draft ROD;

     •    Briefing lead agency upper management on the ROD;

     •    Submitting the draft ROD to other lead agency program
          offices for their review;

     •    Submitting the ROD to the support agency to obtain that
          agency's formal concurrence on the selected remedy;

     •    Reviewing and addressing the support agency's comments and
          modifying the selected remedy, as appropriate;

-------
                          7-4
                       FIGURE 7-1
Lead Agency Responsibility in ROD Development Process
                    Prepare Draft ROD
                     Brief Lead Agency
                       Management
                         on ROD
Submit
ROD to
Program
Offices
Submit
ROD to
Support
Agency
                   Receive
                 Concurrence
                 from Support
                   Agency
 Revise
 ROD for
Signature
                 Brief the following:
                 * Regional Administrator/
                   Assistant Administrator
                 * Support Agency
                               Obtain Appropriate
                               Signatures
                    Publish Notice and
                    Make ROD Available
                       to the Public

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     7-5

     •    Revising the draft ROD for  signature;

     •    Briefing the Regional  Administrator  and  the Assistant
          Administrator of OSWER,  as  well  as the designated
          personnel  in the support agency;

     •    Submitting the ROD to  the Regional Administrator and the
          Assistant Administrator of  OSWER for signature  (if  a State
          or a Federal agency is the  lead  agency,  that  lead agency
          and EPA should sign the ROD);  and

     •    Publishing the newspaper notice  of availability of  the  ROD
          and making the ROD available  to  the  public.

     7.2.2  Support Agency

     The support agency's responsibilities in  the  ROD development process
include:

     •    Reviewing and commenting on the  draft ROD;

     •    Briefing support agency upper management on the ROD;

     •    Coordinating review of the  ROD by other  support agency
          offices;

     •    Providing EPA with a letter stating  whether it  concurs
          with the ROD (this letter becomes part of the
          administrative record  file  when  the  State is  the support
          agency); and

     •    Participating in briefing the upper  management  of the lead
          agency, as necessary.

     The support agency should have an  adequate opportunity to review the
draft ROD prior to its adoption.  Unless otherwise specified  in the SMOA,  CA,
or SSC, 10 working days is recommended  as  the  average amount  of time  that
should be established in the support  agency's  schedule  for review of  the draft
ROD.  For more complicated sites,  a goal of 15 working  days is the  suggested
guideline.

-------
                                                   OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                    7-6

7.3  DISPUTE RESOLUTION

     Continuous  interaction between the lead and  support agencies throughout
the remedy selection process should ensure that final agreement on the
selected remedy  is  accomplished in a timely manner.  There could be instances,
however, where outstanding issues may arise between the lead and support
agencies.  The draft guidance on preparing SMOAs,  Draft Guidance on Preparing
a Suoerfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA) (OSWER Directive 9375.0-01,
September 1988)  specifies a dispute resolution process that could be utilized
by EPA and the State if conflicts should arise.   Chapter 3 of this guidance
discusses the dispute resolution process presented in the proposed revisions
to the NCP (Subpart F, "State Involvement in Hazardous Substance Response," 40
CFR Part 300).   Those resolution procedures should be used if none are
specified in the SMOA.

7.4  ROLE OF OTHER EPA AND STATE PROGRAM OFFICES

     Each agency should establish appropriate procedures and time frames for
intra-agency review of RODs.  An agency may need  to coordinate with a number
of program offices  to ensure that technical and legal aspects of the ROD are
defensible.  Concurrence from EPA's Regional Counsel should be sought prior to
presenting the ROD  to the Regional Administrator  or Assistant Administrator,
unless outstanding  issues exist that must be resolved by the Regional
Administrator or Assistant Administrator.  Regional and State legal counsel
should be involved  early in the remedy selection  process to assist in the
identification of ARARs, to ensure that all enforcement-sensitive issues are
presented properly, and to ensure that the ROD is legally defensible.

7.5  ROLE OF POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

     When the PRP conducts the  RI/FS, the lead agency,  as designated  by the
SMOA, CA, or SSC, is responsibile for writing the Proposed Plan and ROD.  If
the PRPs are not conducting the RI/FS, they should be  kept informed of
remedial activities just as any other member of  the public, through the
community relations process and the administrative record file.

     The lead agency could conduct negotiations  with the  PRPs concerning RD/RA
activities during the time the  ROD is being written.   These negotiations
should be separate  from any ROD-related activities.  Generally, documents that

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                    7-7

result from these negotiations are not  part of the  administrative record
unless they are  submitted by the PRP as information that  the  lead agency
should consider  in selecting the response action.

     At Federal  lead sites, after the ROD is signed,  the  consent decree for
RD/RA is signed  and then filed for a 30-day public  comment  period.  After the
comment period ends, a Responsiveness Summary is compiled by  the Department of
Justice, in consultation with the lead  agency, which provides a discussion of
the procedures to follow when changes contained in  the  consent decree differ
from the remedy  in the ROD.

7.6  ISSUING  NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF  THE ROD

     The ROD should be added to the administrative  record files after it is
signed.  In addition, to comply with CERCLA, the lead agency  should publish a
notice of the availability of the ROD in a local newspaper.   CERCLA section
117(b), states that:

          Notice of the final remedial  action plan  adopted  shall be
          published and the plan shall  be made available  to the
          public before commencement of any remedial  action...

     The public  notice of availability of the ROD should  be brief and factual.
It need not be as extensive as the newspaper notification of  availability of
the RI/FS and Proposed Plan, which are described in Chapter 4 of this
guidance.  The notice should use a display advertisement  format and should be
published in a widely read section of the newspaper.

     7.6.1  Elements of the ROD Public  Notice

     The ROD newspaper notification should include  the  following elements:

     •    The site name and notice of availability  of the ROD;

     •    The date on which the ROD was signed;

     •    A brief summary of the major elements of  the  selected
          remedy;

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                      7-8

     •    Details on the location and hours of availability of the
          administrative record file and/or the information
          repository; and

     •    The name and telephone number of the tndtvidual(s) to
          contact for further information about the site and the
          remedy selected.

     The lead agency may find it appropriate to provide information in the
newspaper notification about support agency concurrence or non-concurrence on
the ROD.  When preparing a ROD notice for a Federal facility, the announcement
should specify that the ROD has been prepared by the relevant Federal agency
and approved by EPA.  Exhibit 7-1 is an example of a newspaper notification
announcing the availability of the ROD for public review.

-------
                                                             OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                           7-9
                                    EXHIBIT 7-1

                         Sample Newspaper  Notification
                   of Availability  of the  Record  of  Decision
               THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          ANNOUNCES THE AVAILABILITY OF THE
                             RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE
                            EIO INDUSTRIAL SUPERFUND SITE
                                IN NAMELESS, TENNESSEE


      On March 31, 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed the Record of Decision
(ROD) that formally selects the cleanup plan for the soil contamination at the EIO Industrial site. The ROD
outlines EPA's decision for selecting the cleanup remedy for the site.  The Tennessee Pollution Control Board
concurs with the findings in the ROD.

      EPA has decided to excavate contaminated soils, treat the organic compounds in the soils using a low-
temperature volatilization loop, stabilize the remaining wastes, and dispose  of the treated soils in an on-site
landfill.

      The administrative record file for the site, which includes the ROD  and all documents that formed the
basis for EPA's selection of the cleanup remedy, is available for public review at the locations listed below.


                 Nameless Public Library        U.S. EPA Docket Room, Region 4
                 125 Elm Street                Federal Building, 10th  Floor
                 Nameless, TN 00000            Atlanta, GA 00000
                 (101) 9994099                 (555) 555-1212
                 Hours:                        Hours:
                 Mon.-Sat.: 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.      Mon.-Fri.: 8:30  a.m. to 4:30 p.m.


      Questions about EPA's decision or other activities at the EIO Industrial Superfund site should be
directed to:


                                        Joshua Doe
                               Community Relations  Coordinator
                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                    123 Peachtree Street
                                     Atlanta, GA 00000
                                       (555) 555-4640
                                  Toll-free: 1 (800) 333-1515
                                between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

-------
                                                   OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                               CHAPTER 8

                  POST-ROD SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
8.1  OVERVIEW

     After a  ROD  is signed, new information may  be generated during the RD/RA
process that  could affect the remedy selected  in the ROD.  The lead agency
should  analyze  this new information to determine if changes should be made to
the selected  remedy.  Three types of changes could occur:  (1) non-significant
changes;  (2)  significant changes; and (3)  fundamental changes.  If non-
significant or  minor changes are made, they should be recorded in the post-
decision  document file; if significant changes are made to a component of the
remedy  in the ROD, these changes should be documented in an Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD); and if fundamental changes are made to the
overall remedy, these changes should be documented in a ROD amendment.  This
chapter provides  procedures to review and  document changes when new
information is  provided by the public, PRPs, or  the support agency, or when
new information is generated by the lead agency  that affects the selected
remedy.  Definitions of significant changes are  presented and the
documentation procedures associated with them  are summarized.  This chapter
also provides an  outline of an ESD, an amended ROD, and examples of
documenting non-significant and significant differences.

8.2  REQUIREMENTS  TO ADDRESS SIGNIFICANT  CHANGES

     The  lead agency may determine that a  significant change to the selected
remedy, as described in the ROD, is necessary  after the ROD is signed.  CERCLA
section 117(c)  requires the lead agency to address post-ROD significant
changes:

          After adoption of a final remedial action plan (1) if any
          remedial action is taken [under  sections 104 or 120], (2) if
          any enforcement action under section 106 is taken, or (3) if
          any settlement or consent decree under section 106 or section
          122 is  entered into, and if such action, settlement or decree
          differs in any significant respects  from the final plan [ROD]
          the [lead agency] shall publish  an explanation of the
          significant differences and the  reasons such changes were made.

-------
                                                     OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                     8-2

     The statute's emphasis  on  "significant"  differences  indicates  that  not
all differences between the  remedy  specified  in  the  ROD and  the  remedial
design, remedial  or enforcement action,  and settlement or consent decree are
required to be addressed in  an  ESD.   A  review of the legislative history
indicates that the significant  differences provision in CERCLA section 117(c)
was not intended to be unreasonably burdensome on the lead agency.   As a
result, a threshold for defining significant  changes (or  differences) has been
established, which is intended  to reduce the  paperwork burden  on the lead
agency without compromising  the public's right to be kept informed.
Therefore, only changes that significantly alter the scope,  performance,  or
cost of a component of the remedy as presented in the ROD should be addressed
in an ESD.

     The proposed revisions  to  the  NCR  incorporate this statutory requirement
for the lead agency to address  significant changes that arise  after the  ROD  is
signed.  In addition, the proposed  revisions  to  the  NCR incorporate for  the
first time EPA's policy of amending a ROD (or other  decision document) if a
significant change is made to a remedy  that fundamentally alters the hazardous
waste management approach presented in  the ROD.

     8.2.1  Analyzing information Received  or  Generated

     The information that provides  the  basis  for making a significant change
to a remedy could come from  a number of sources  including the  public, PRPs,
the support agency, or the lead agency  itself.  The  proposed revisions to the
NCR specify criteria for the lead agency to follow in determining the extent
to which it should formally  "consider"  (i.e.,  formally respond to)  new
information submitted by the public, PRPs, and the support agency after  the
ROD is signed.  These procedures are presented in Section 8.3.  The procedures
that the lead agency should  follow  in evaluating information it  develops
during the RD/RA process and the subsequent effects  of that  information  on the
selected remedy are presented in Section 8.4.  Section 8.5 defines  three
categories of post-ROD changes  and  the  documentation procedures  that should  be
followed for each.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     8-3

8.3  CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE
     PUBLIC, PRPS, AND THE SUPPORT AGENCY

     EPA and the  States  have general procedures for responding  to comments or
information received  throughout the remedial process.   CERCLA ensures that the
public,  PRPs,  and the support agency have the opportunity to  participate  in
the remedy selection  process prior to adoption of the  ROD.  Once  the lead
agency has selected the  response action, however, its  obligation  to respond to
comments on the remedy is limited to special circumstances  (see Section 8.4,
below) so that implementation of the selected remedy can be expedited.

     The support  agency's role in the RD/RA process after the ROD is signed is
different from the public's  role because the support agency has a uniquely
defined role in the RD/RA process (see CERCLA section  121(f)  for  the role of
the State).  In general, the support agency has an opportunity  to be involved
in reviewing the  engineering design and other reports  relating  to
implementation of the remedy.  The support agency is also notified of
negotiations with PRPs and given the opportunity to participate in those
negotiations.   Given  these specific roles, information submitted  by the
support agency during RD/RA  will typically be in the form of  comments it  has
received.  In  most instances, it is expected that these comments  could be
addressed through the normal communications process between the lead and
support agencies. The comments and any lead agency responses should be
documented in  the post-decision document file.

     The public,  including PRPs, may submit information to  the  lead agency
after the ROD  is  signed  that serves as the basis for their  request that a
component of the  remedy  be changed (e.g., increase the boundaries of the
site).  Similarly, there may be instances in which the support  agency submits
new information or makes a significant comment on the  RD/RA that  falls outside
the standard review and  comment process in which the support  agency
participates throughout  the  entire remedial process.  For example, the support
agency may request that  the  lead agency incorporate into the  remedy a newly-
passed State regulation  or an advisory that it determines is  necessary to
achieve adequate  protection  of human health and the environment.

     When information is received from the public or support  agency after the
ROD is signed,  the information should be analyzed to determine  if it should be
"considered" by the lead agency.  Consideration refers to the lead agency's
obligation to  respond formally, in writing, to information  received and to

-------
                                                      OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                      8-4

document this response in the administrative  record.   The types of information
typically received from the public and  support  agency are described in the
next section, along with the lead agency's  obligation to respond to this
information.

8.4  STANDARDS  FOR CONSIDERATION  OF INFORMATION
     SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC, PRPs, OR  SUPPORT AGENCY

     EPA recommends a four-part standard  for  determining which comments
submitted by the public or support agency after the  ROD is signed warrant
formal consideration.1  Formal  consideration, as  specified in  the proposed
revisions to the NCR and depicted in  Figure 8-1,  requires a written response
to the comments and the inclusion of  the  comments in the administrative record
file.  Comments received from the support agency or  public should be
considered by the  lead agency when each of  the  following criteria are met:

     •    The comments contain significant  information;

     •    The information is not contained  elsewhere in the
          administrative record file;

     •    The information could not have  been submitted during the
          public comment period; and

     •    The information substantially supports the need to
          significantly alter the response  action.

     In most cases (particularly in light of  the fourth criterion),
information that meets this four-part standard warrants a significant change
to the remedy.  Depending upon how  significant the change is, the lead  agency
should prepare either  an ESD or a ROD amendment following the guidance  in
Section 8.5 below.   The ESD or amended ROD  represent the lead agency's  formal
written response to  the information  submitted.
    1 The basis for establishing the "consideration" standard relates back to the public's and support
agency's statutory opportunity to participate in the remedy selection process prior to adoption of the
ROD.  Once the lead agency has selected the response action, the obligation to respond to comments on
the remedy is limited.  Additionally, it is in the best interest of the public for the lead agency to proceed
with the implementation of the selected remedy in an expeditious manner. The lead agency's ability to
accomplish this would be compromised if it were under the obligation to formally respond to every
comment submitted after the ROD is signed.

-------
                                 8-5
                               FIGURE 8-1
           Process to Address Post-ROD Significant Changes
                                 INFORMATION RECEIVED
                                   FROM PUBLIC OR
                                   SUPPORT AGENCY
        YES I-
                        DOES
                     INFORMATION
                       LEAD TO
                     SIGNIFICANT
                      CHANGES?
                                      DOES IT
                                  WARRANT FORMAL
                                  "CONSIDERATION"
                                      BY LEAD
   LEAD AGENCY MUST
     ISSUE EITHER:
   EXPLANATION OF
    SIGNIFICANT
    DIFFERENCES; OR
   NEW PROPOSED PLAN
    AND ROD AMENDMENT
                                                        N0|
             LEAD AGENCY PLACES
               INFORMATION IN
               POST-DECISION
               DOCUMENT FILE
       NO
  LEAD AGENCY MUST:
* FORMALLY RESPOND;
  AND

* PLACE DOCUMENT IN
  ADMINISTRATIVE
  RECORD FILE
** NOTE:
     * DO THE COMMENTS CONTAIN SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION?
     * IS THE INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD?
     * COULD THE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD?
     * DOES THE INFORMATION SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORT THE NEED TO ALTER
       THE RESPONSE ACTION?

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                    8-6

     There may be limited situations in which the  information  submitted by the
support agency or the public meets the  four-part  standard  for  formal
consideration, but the significant change to the  remedy  cannot be undertaken.
For example,  information that supports  the use of  in-situ  vitrification at a
site may be  submitted to the lead agency when 90  percent of the construction
of the previously selected thermal destruction remedy  already  has been
completed.   In this case, the lead agency may determine  that  implementation of
in-situ vitrification is not practicable or cost-effective, even though the
new information  supports the use of that remedy.   Because  no change is made to
the remedy,  the  lead agency would not prepare an  ESD or  amended ROD.  Instead,
the lead agency  would prepare a written explanation  of why a significant
change to the remedy will not be made and include  this in  the  administrative
record file.  This process is shown in  Figure 8-1.

8.5  CONSIDERATION OF  INFORMATION GENERATED BY  THE
     LEAD AGENCY

     During  the  RD/RA process, the lead agency itself  could generate
information  that supports making a significant change  to the  remedy selected
in the ROD.   This information could be  developed  through additional
investigations at the site.  The lead agency may  determine, for example, that
a pilot-scale test is necessary on a particular technology to  further define
the design  specifications of a particular treatment  technology.

     Alternatively, the  lead agency may take additional  samples during
remedial design  to define more accurately the volume and type  of waste to be
treated. This new information will typically support  the  implementation of
the remedy  presented in  the ROD.  There will be instances, however, in which
such information results in the lead agency initiating a significant change to
the remedy.

     Additional  information and changes can also  occur during  RD/RA through
the process  of value engineering.  The remedy described  in the ROD may be
subject to  modifications and changes in the design and construction process
intended to  enhance the  cost-effectiveness of the remedy.  The Superfund
program routinely uses value engineering to analyze  remedies  with respect to
equipment,  facilities, services, and supplies associated with the system.
This analysis is conducted with the specific intent  of designing  and
constructing the lowest-cost remedy consistent with  the  performance,  scope,
and reliability  of the remedy selected in the ROD.  The  goal  of this  process

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     8-7

is to lead to  decisions during design and construction that optimize the cost-
effectiveness  and  performance of the remedy.  There will be instances,
therefore, in  which  these value engineering decisions result in significant
changes to the remedy.

     Unlike the public, PRPs, and the support agency, who are subject to the
consideration  standard discussed in Section 8.3, the lead agency has the
discretion to  make decisions regarding the post-ROD information it generates.
As previously  mentioned, the intent of the consideration standard is to
determine what public or support agency information the lead agency should
respond to and document in  the administrative record file.  The intent of this
standard does  not  apply to  information the lead agency generates itself, since
there is no need to  respond to that information.

     The lead  agency's  initial analysis should focus on whether the new
information generated during RD/RA prompts the lead agency to initiate a
change to the  remedy.  The  change may be either a non-significant or a
significant change to the ROD.  If the lead agency determines a significant
change is warranted, then the lead agency should consult with the support
agency to determine  the appropriate procedures for documenting that
significant change (e.g., an ESD or ROD amendment).  The procedures for
evaluating the magnitude of the changes made to a remedy and, therefore, the
documentation  procedures that should  be followed, are presented in the next
section.

8.6   CATEGORIES OF  POST-ROD  CHANGES

     Once the  lead agency determines  that a change to the remedy is warranted
based on the information submitted by the public, PRPs, the support agency, or
simply generated through the RD/RA process, the change  should be evaluated to
determine whether  it is one of the following:

     •    A non-significant or minor  change;

     •    A significant change to a component of the  remedy; or

     •    A fundamental change to the overall remedy.

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     8-8

The lead agency's categorization of a change is a site-specific determination.
In making this determination,  the lead agency should consider the effect  the
change has on the scope, performance, or cost of the remedy as described  in
the ROD.  The lead agency should consider the following factors:

     •    Does the change significantly alter the scope of the remedy (i.e.,
          the physical area of the response, remediation goals, type and
          volume of wastes)?

     •    Would the change alter the performance (e.g., treatment levels  to be
          attained) and thus raise concerns about the protectiveness or long-
          term effectiveness of the remedy that could not have been
          anticipated based on information in the ROD?

     •    Are the changes in costs of such a nature that they could not have
          been anticipated based on the estimates in the ROD and the
          recognized uncertainties associated with the hazardous waste
          engineering process selected?

     Based on this evaluation, the lead agency determines that the change is
non-significant, significant,  or fundamental in nature.  Each category is
discussed below along with the associated documentation procedures.

     8.6.1   Non-Significant Changes

     Non-significant (i.e., minor) changes fall within the normal scope of
changes occurring during the RD/RA engineering process.  These minor changes
typically are the result of value engineering conducted during remedial design
and construction. Through the value engineering process, modifications are
made to functional specifications of the remedy to optimize performance and
minimize costs.  This may result in minor or non-significant changes to the
type and/or cost of materials, equipment, facilities, services, and supplies
used to implement the remedy.   When such changes do not significantly affect
the scope, performance, or cost of a remedy, they should be considered minor
or non-significant.  Exhibit 8-1 presents examples of non-significant changes.

     The lead agency need not prepare an ESD for minor changes.  However,
minor changes should be documented in the post-decision document file, which
is equivalent to the RD/RA case file for a remedial action.  The documentation

-------
                                                         OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                      8-9
                               EXHIBIT 8-1

            Examples of a  Non-Significant Difference
     Specific examples of a non-significant difference have been developed using the
following hypothetical remedy. The major components of the remedy include:

           Excavation of 11,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil; treatment by thermal
           destruction; disposal in an on-site landfill;
           Restoration of ground water through air stripping/reinjection;
           Provision of an alternate Water supply;
           Capital cost:  $42,463,300;
           Annual O&M: $26,200; Present worth:  $42,708,780; and
           Implementation time:  12 to 15 months.


     Example 1;  In conducting engineering design and costing procedures, the lead
agency refines the original cost and time estimates for the selected remedy in the ROD.
The  actual cost  of implementing  the remedy rises from $4.7 million to $5,3 million, and
the implementation time increases six months. Such refining of the time and cost
estimates of remedies occurs  through the usual course of remedial design at most sites.
These changes are not significant differences; the lead agency is not required to prepare
an BSD. Such changes should be documented in a post-decision document file and may
be summarized in the RD/RA fact sheet.

     Example 2; The lead agency determines that the contaminant plume has migrated
1,500 feet outside the original boundaries of the site.  As a result of the migration, the
boundaries of the site are enlarged to incorporate the plume. This is a non-significant
difference.  Explanation of the boundary change should be included in the post-decision
document file and may be summarized in the RD/RA fact sheet.
     All of the examples in the exhibits in Chapter 8 are hypothetical; the numbers do
     not represent Agency standards.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                    8-10

of non-significant differences  should  not  be  part of the administrative record
file for the ROD.   If the lead  agency  chooses, non-significant changes can be
documented for the public in  an optional Remedial Design Fact Sheet.  These
fact sheets generally are used  to  inform citizens of the lead agency's
schedule for public participation  activities  as well as progress being made  in
the design and implementation of the remedy.  These fact sheets also can be
used to notify the public of  any minor changes made to the remedy.

     8.6.2  Significant Changes to  a Component of a  Remedy

     As a result of information submitted  by  the public, PRPs, the  support
agency, or generated by the lead agency through its own activities  during the
RD/RA process, the lead agency  may make a  significant change to a component  of
a remedy.  Significant changes  to  a component of a remedy generally are
incremental changes to the hazardous waste approach selected for the site
(i.e., a change in timing, cost, or implementability).  These changes do not
fundamentally alter the overall approach intended by a remedy.  Significant
changes to a component of a remedy also may result from an enforcement action
taken pursuant to CERCLA section 106 or a  settlement or consent decree entered
into pursuant to sections 106 and  122  after adoption of the  ROD.  When
significant changes are made  to a  component of a remedy, an  ESD should be
prepared.  Exhibit 8-2 presents examples of changes that warrant an ESD.

     When the settlement or consent decree proposes to make  a significant
change to a component of the  remedy, the ESD  should be prepared and issued
concurrently with the consent decree.   Where  the negotiations result in a
fundamental change being proposed  to the overall remedy in the ROD  (e.g., from
incineration to bioremediation) and not just  a component of  the remedy, the
lead agency should initiate the process for amending  the ROD (see section
8.6.3 for more information on amending RODs). The consent decree should
reflect, to the extent possible, the remedy described  in the ROD.

     During the period when the ESD is being  prepared  and then made available
to the public, the lead agency  should  proceed with the pre-design,  design,
construction, or operation activities  associated with  the remedy.   The remedy
can continue to be implemented  in  this case because the ESD  represents only  a
notice of a change, and is not  a formal opportunity for public comment since
the Agency is not reconsidering the overall remedy.   The flow charts  in
Figures 8-2 and 8-3 illustrate  the remedial and enforcement  processes  that
could lead to issuance of an  ESD.

-------
                                                             OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                         8-11
                                  EXHIBIT 8-2

                  Examples  of  a Significant  Difference
                       to  a  Component  of a Remedy
       Specific examples of a significant difference have been developed using the following
hypothetical remedy which calls for:

             Excavation of 11,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil; treatment by thermal
             destruction; disposal in an on-site landfill;
             Restoration of ground water through air stripping/reinjection;
             Provision of an alternate water supply;
             Capital cost:  $42,463,300;
             Annual O&M:  $26,200; Present worth:  $42,708,780; and
             Implementation time:  12 to 15  months.

       Example 1;  In the process of implementing the remedy, the lead agency conducts
additional sampling and determines that the volume of soil to be incinerated is 50 percent
greater than the volume estimated in the ROD. As a result, a proportional increase in capital
costs of the remedy is realized.  The capital cost increases from $4,6 to $7  million, and the
amount of time necessary to incinerate the additional soils adds three years to the
implementation  time frame estimated in the ROD.

       Because the scope and cost of the remedy have changed substantially from the
specifications of the remedy in the ROD, an BSD is prepared to inform the public of the
changes.  Remedial design continues, because the lead agency determines the public already
has had an adequate opportunity to comment on the overall approach the remedy represents
(i.e., incineration and disposal in an on-site landfill).  No public comment period is necessary.

       Example 2;  The lead agency reaches a settlement with the PRPs for a site,  who  agree
to implement the remedy selected  in the ROD but delay the ground-water restoration
procedures for three years.  The lead  agency determines that this is a significant difference
that alters the performance  (i.e,, short-term effectiveness)  of the remedy. The lead agency
prepares  an BSD documenting the significant difference from the ROD and the specific
reasons for the  change.  The Consent Decree is issued for public review and  comment. The
ESD is issued at the same time  for public review.

       Example 3:  The lead agency decides to use carbon adsorption rather than air
stripping  to conduct the ground-water restoration activities.  Because further investigation
revealed that the volatile organics in the waste stream at the site are of low solubility and
polarity, carbon adsorption will provide better removal efficiency on this waste stream than
would air  stripping.  The basic pump and treat remedy  remains unaltered, and the
performance level specified in the ROD will still be met by the new technology.  The lead
agency prepares an ESD to notify  the public that the new technology is to be used.  No
amendment to the ROD is necessary,  and remedial design can continue.

-------
                           8-12
                         FIGURE 8-2
         Process That Results in the Issuance
      off an Explanation of Significant Differences:
                  General Procedures
                    information received
                       from public or
                     support agency or
                  generated by lead agency
CO
LJJ
8
o
CC
Lead agency determines:
 Information should be
  considered; and
 A significant change to a
  component of the remedy
  would result
                  Lead agency:

                 *  Prepares ESD; and
                 *  Gives support agency
                    opportunity to
                    comment
                  Lead agency:
                   Publishes newspaper
                    notice; and
                   Places ESD and relevant
                    information In
                    administrative record file

-------
                          8-13
                        FIGURE 8-3
  Process That Results in the Issuance of an Explanation
                  of Significant Differences:
      Changes Resulting From Enforcement Activities
oc
o
oc
o
o>
o
o.
oc
0.
Consent Decree Is signed
which Includes significant
changes to a component
of the selected remedy
 Lead agency:
'  Prepares ESD; and
1  Gives support
   agency opportunity
   to comment
                                   Lead agency:
                                  * Publishes newspaper
                                     notice:
                                  * Makes ESD and appropriate!
                                     Information available In thej
                                     administrative record file;
                                          and
                                  * Gives public the
                                     opportunity to
                                     comment on
                                     Consent Decree
                                   Lead Agency:
                                 * Responds to comments;
                                          and
                                 * Motions to  enter Into
                                    Consent Decree
                                      Consent Decree
                                      Is entered with
                                     U.S. District Court

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                     8-14

     8.6.2.1   Preparing the ESD

     The ESD can be prepared using one of two formats:  a fact sheet format  or
a more general  and expanded decision document format.   The complexity of the
changes undertaken should be considered when deciding  which format  to use.   In
either format,  the ESD should include the information  presented in  Exhibit  8-
3.

     The lead agency should conduct the following activities when issuing an
ESD:

     •    Provide the support agency with a reasonable opportunity
          to comment on the ESD prior to publication (a maximum of
          15 working days is recommended, unless otherwise specified
          in the SMOA, CA,  or SSC);

     •    Summarize the support agency's comments in the ESD;

     •    Publish a notice of availability and brief description of
          the ESD in a local newspaper of general circulation,  as
          required by CERCLA section 117(c);

     •    Make the ESD available to the public by placing it in the
          administrative record file and information repository; and

     •    Place the information supporting the change  in the
          administrative record file, as well as the lead agency's
          response to any comments.  A Responsiveness  Summary is not
          required.

     Although the lead agency may choose to conduct these activities, a formal
public comment period, public meeting, and Responsiveness Summary are not
required when issuing an ESD.

     Role of the Support Agency.  Although the lead agency has the  discretion
to determine if a change should be undertaken, the support agency should be
given the opportunity to comment on the proposed significant change.  The
interaction and flow of information between the lead and support agencies
during RD/RA is fundamental to ensuring that the remedial process proceeds in
a timely manner.  Therefore, the support agency should be given the

-------
                                                            OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                        8-15
                                 EXHIBIT  8-3

                       Outline  for the  Explanation
                         of  Significant  Differences
Introduction
      i                                  '
      Site name and location.
      Identification of lead and support agencies.
      Citation of CERCLA section 117(c) that requires the ESD.
      Summary of the circumstances that gave rise to the need for an ESD.
      Statement that the ESD will become part  of the administrative record file.
      Address of location where the file is available and hours of availability of the file.

Summary of Site History, Contamination Problems, and Selected Remedy

      Summary of contamination problems and site history, including the date the ROD was
      signed.
      Summary of the remedy as originally described  in the ROD.

Description of Significant Differences and the Basis for those Differences

      Summary of the information that gave  rise to significant differences from the selected
      remedy as it was originally specified.  This summary information could include the results
      of treatability studies or other information developed or provided to  the lead agency during
      the remedial design process. In this discussion, reference should be  made to any
      information in the administrative record file that supports the need for the change.

      Description of the significant differences between the remedy as presented in the ROD
      and the* action'now proposed". As appropriate,  this description should summarize the
      differences in scope, performance (e.g., technology, ARARs,  and timing), or cost between
      the original and modified remedy.

Support Agency Comments

      Summary of support agency comments on proposed ESD.

Affirmation of the Statutory Determinations

      Affirmation that the modified  remedy continues to satisfy statutory requirements. The
      ESD should include a statement such as:  "Considering the new information that has been
      developed and the changes  that have been made to the selected remedy, the [lead and
      support agencies]  believe that  the remedy  remains protective of human health and the
      environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are  applicable or relevant
      and appropriate to this remedial action, and is cost-effective.  In addition, the revised
      remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
      technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this site."

Public Participation Activities

      Notice that administrative record is available for comment.
      Date of any planned public information meeting.
      (NOTE:  EPA is not required to hold  public meetings on ESDs but may choose to if
      warranted by public interest.)

-------
                                                      OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                     8-16

opportunity to comment on the  ESD  prior  to  the  lead  agency making  the  ESD
available to the public.  These  time frames should be  specified  in the SMOA,
CA, or SSC.  It is  recommended that 15 working  days  be the maximum review
period, unless otherwise specified in the SMOA, CA,  or SSC.

     The lead and support agencies generally will reach  agreement  on the
proposed significant change.   However, there may be  situations in  which
outstanding issues  cannot be resolved by the respective  staffs of  the  lead  and
support agencies.   In this event,  the dispute resolution process discussed  in
Chapter 3 of this guidance can be  utilized.  In the  event that a mutually
acceptable resolution cannot be  reached, the support agency's comments should
be summarized in the ESD and placed in the  administrative record file  along
with the lead agency's response  to those comments.   EPA must concur on the  ESD
in the case of Fund-financed RODs.

     8.6.3   Fundamental Changes  to the ROD

     In a few cases, new information submitted  by the public, PRPs, the
support agency, or  developed by  the lead agency during RD/RA may cause the
lead agency to reconsider the hazardous  waste management approach  selected  in
the ROD.  For example, the lead  agency may determine that the innovative
technology originally selected in  the ROD did not perform satisfactorily
during the pilot scale testing conducted during design.  Based on  this
information, the lead agency could decide to switch to thermal destruction,
rather than use the innovative technology, a move that would represent a
fundamental change  to the remedy.  Alternatively, the lead agency,  as  a result
of negotiations with PRPs, may choose to change the remedy in the  ROD  from
thermal destruction to a biological treatment process -- also a fundamental
change.  When such  fundamental changes are made to a remedy, the lead  agency
should repeat the ROD process in accordance with the requirements  of CERCLA
section 117 by issuing a revised Proposed Plan  and an amended ROD.2
Additional examples of cases in  which a  ROD amendment would be necessary are
presented in Exhibit 8-4.

     Procedures for Issuing the  ROD Amendment.  When there are fundamental
changes proposed to the ROD, the lead agency should conduct the public
participation and documentation  procedures specified in CERCLA section 117
   t)
      If the lead agency is amending a pre-SARA ROD (i.e., a decision document signed prior to
October 17,  1986), the amended remedy will have to satisfy the requirements of section 121 of CERCLA.

-------
                                                          OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                       8-17
                                EXHIBIT  8-4

                            Significant Change
               That  Fundamentally Alters  the Remedy
                  Requiring  Amendment  of the ROD
       Specific examples of significant differences that fundamentally alter a remedy requiring
amendment of the ROD have been developed using the following hypothetical remedy. The
major components of the remedy include:

             Excavation of 11,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil; treatment by thermal
             destruction; disposal in an on-site landfill;
             Restoration Of ground water through air stripping/reinjection;
             Provision of an alternate water supply;
             Capital cost:  $42,463,300;
             Annual O&M:  $26,200; Present worth: $42,708,780; and
             Implementation time:  12 to 15 months.


       Example 1:  The lead agency determines that incineration capacity cannot be secured
in the time period necessary for remediating the site. The lead agency proposes to use
bioremediation rather  than the thermal destruction originally selected to address the
contaminated soil.  This new  remedy is  fundamentally different from the remedy selected in
the  ROD,  and an amended ROD must  be prepared. Remedial design for the source control
remedy is halted because the thermal destruction remedy is no longer implementable. Data
collection to support the design of the bioremediation option and RD/RA on the ground-water
remedy may proceed.

       Example 2:  The lead agency negotiates a consent decree with the PRPs that proposes
to implement a remedy other than the one selected in the ROD. The PRPs propose in-situ
vitrification rather than thermal destruction, which was the  selected  remedy in the ROD.
Because the public has not had an opportunity to  comment on the proposed remedy in the
consent decree, a Proposed Plan is prepared proposing the ROD amendment.  Remedial
design cannot commence until the consent decree  and amended ROD are legally enforceable.
The comment periods for the Proposed Plan and consent decree are held concurrently.  An
amended ROD and Responsiveness Summary are  prepared. The Proposed Plan, consent
decree, and amended ROD are included in the administrative record file.

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     8-18

which are outlined in Chapters 3 and 7 of this guidance.  When a fundamental
change is proposed as a result of negotiations with a PRP, the Proposed Plan
for the ROD amendment should be released for public comment concurrently with
the consent decree.  If the proposed amended ROD addresses the entire response
action for the site or a series of operable units (e.g., soil, surface water,
and ground water), only that portion of the remedy being changed (e.g., ground
water) requires an amendment.  RD/RA activities in the other operable units
not proposed for changes may continue during the amendment process.  Figures
8-4 and 8-5 summarize the processes that could lead to an amended ROD.

     Key Elements of the ROD Amendment.  When issuing a ROD amendment
(preceded by a revised Proposed Plan), the amount of information to include in
these documents will be a function of the type of change made to the remedy
and the rationale for that change.  In general, the introductory sections of
the Proposed Plan and ROD (e.g., site history, community relations, and site
risks) do not need to be readdressed in these amended documents.  The focus
should be on documenting the reasons for the ROD amendment, evaluating the
existing and proposed remedies in terms of the nine criteria, and providing
assurances that the proposed remedy satisfies the statutory requirements.

-------
                                                 OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                              CHAPTER 9

         DOCUMENTING NO ACTION, INTERIM ACTION,
            AND CONTINGENCY  REMEDY  DECISIONS
     This chapter presents guidance  on preparing the  Proposed Plan  and ROD for
three unique types of remedial actions:

         •    No action;

         •    Interim action; and

         •    Contingency remedies.

     This chapter defines these decisions and outlines the modifications that
should be made to the standard Proposed Plan and ROD  formats described in
Chapters 2 and 6, respectively, when preparing the decision documents  in
support of these special types of decisions.

9.1  DOCUMENTING A "NO ACTION" DECISION

     EPA may determine that "no action" is warranted  for a site or  operable
unit within a site under three general circumstances:

     •   A site or operable unit is already in a protective state  (i.e., the
         site or operable unit poses no current or potential threat to human
         health or the environment);

     •   CERCLA does not provide the appropriate authority to take any or
         complete remedial action;  or

     •   No effective action can be taken using currently available
         technology.

These three circumstances are described below, along  with the special
documentation procedures that should be followed for  both the Proposed Plan
and ROD.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     9-2
     9.1.1     No Action is Necessary to Achieve  Protection of
               Human  Health and the Environment

     In limited situations,  the baseline  risk assessment conducted during the
RI provides the basis for concluding that the conditions at a site or a
portion of a site pose no current  or potential  threat to human health or the
environment.  The lead agency,  therefore, may determine that its authority
under CERCLA sections 104 or 106 to undertake a remedial action to ensure
adequate protection need not be invoked.  Under such circumstances, the
statutory cleanup standards  of  CERCLA section 121  (e.g., compliance with
ARARs, cost-effectiveness) are  not triggered and these requirements need not
be addressed in documenting  the determination that a "no action" decision is
appropriate for a site or a  portion of the  site.

     Examples of sites at which a  "no action" decision could be made include:
(1) a site where a previous  removal action  mitigated the threat; and (2) a
site at which the threat no  longer exists because  of natural environmental
processes (e.g., natural attenuation of a ground-water contaminant plume).
While no action decisions may authorize monitoring to verify that  no
unacceptable exposures occur, such response decisions should not include any
additional measures to eliminate,  reduce, or control threats beyond the
mitigative measures previously  taken.  Therefore,  a remedy  including any
treatment controls, engineering controls  (e.g., containment), or institutional
controls would not be considered a "no action"  remedy.

     The finding that "no action"  is necessary  to  ensure adequate  protection
of human health and the environment should  be supported by  the baseline risk
assessment or other information in the administrative record file.  The
finding should take into account both the current  and reasonable maximum
exposure scenarios using appropriate health and environmental criteria and
standards that relate directly  to  the media and hazardous substances being
addressed.  Sites or site areas at which EPA has determined that no action  is
necessary should allow for unrestricted use of, or unlimited access to, the
area or have in place appropriate  exposure  controls from a  previous action  to
ensure that no unacceptable exposures will  occur (i.e., exposures  greater than
10"4  for  carcinogens).   If EPA  has  determined that  no action is necessary for
an entire site, that site is eligible for deletion from the NPL once the no

-------
                                                     OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                      9-3
action decision is codified in a ROD.  Exhibits 9-1  and  9-2  present  outlines
of the Proposed Plan and ROD for documenting  "no  action"  decisions.1

     9.1.2   No CERCLA  Authority to Take Action

     There are a few circumstances  in which the results  of the  RI  and/or FS
indicate that CERCLA does not provide the  appropriate  legal  authority to
undertake a remedial action at a site.  One possible example is off-site
contamination that is not attributable to  an  NPL  site.   In this case, EPA
would not have the authority to respond using Superfund  resources  until  the
release is traced and its source is listed on the  NPL.   Alternatively,  the
results of the RI may show that the contaminants  of  concern  at  the site are
exempt from remedial action under CERCLA  section  101.  For example,  releases
involving only petroleum wastes are excluded  from CERCLA remedial  action.  In
preparing the Proposed Plan and ROD for this  type  of "no action" decision, the
documentation should support this determination.   Exhibits 9-3  and 9-4 present
outlines for the Proposed Plan and  ROD, respectively,  for this  category of a
"no action" decision.

     9.1.3   No Effective  Action
   t

     The Agency may determine that  no effective remedial  action is possible at
a site or operable unit due to the  site conditions or  the nature of the
contamination at the site.  For example,  it is possible  that the process of
remediating a wetland would result  in greater environmental  harm than if the
contamination were left in  place.   Another possible  example  is  where the
removal of the contamination, such  as white phosphorus submerged in an
estuary, would be technologically infeasible, due to the risks  to  the workers,
community, and environment  that would result  from the  use of current
technology.  The Proposed Plan and  ROD should indicate that  the five-year
review will be performed for sites  in such instances where  "no  action" is
possible.  Exhibits 9-5 and 9-6 present outlines  of  the  Proposed Plan and ROD,
respectively, for documenting this  type of a  "no  action" decision.
    1 All of the Exhibits in Chapter 9 are based upon either the Outline for the Proposed Plan (Chapter
2) or the Outline for the ROD (Chapter 6). A line through the text indicates a deletion and bold text
indicates a change to the existing section or a "new" section.

-------
                                                           OSWER  Directive 9355.3-02
                                         9-4
                                 EXHIBIT  9-1

                  Documenting  a  No  Action  Decision:
                 Action Not  Necessary for Protection
                        OUTLINE FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN

       A  Proposed Plan to document  the  decision  that no action is  necessary to achieve
protection of human health and the  environment at a site or operable unit should follow the
guidance in Chapter 2 with the special modifications outlined below.

       1.     Introduction

       2.     Site Description

       3.     Scope and Role of Operable Unit - Specify in this section any relationship this
             "no action" decision has to other past and future site activities, particularly any
             removal or interim actions under  which exposure controls  may have been
             implemented.

       4.     Summary of Site Risks • The information presented  in this section will provide
             the primary basis for the  "no action" decision. The  discussion should support
             the determination that remedial action  is not necessary to ensure protection of
             human health and the  environment. This can be accomplished by demonstrating
             bow the current and reasonable maximum exposure scenarios considered under
             the baseline risk assessment indicate  that unacceptable exposures will not occur.
             Any exposure controls implemented as  part of previous actions that contribute
             to protection of human health and the  environment  should be discussed.
       5-.	Summary of Alternatives

       o.     J-^y
-------
                                                          OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                        9-5
                                EXHIBIT 9-2

                 Documenting a  No  Action  Decision:
                 Action  Not  Necessary for Protection
                             OUTLINE FOR THE ROD

       The preparation of a ROD to document a decision that no action is necessary to ensure
protection of human  health and the environment should  follow the guidance presented in
Chapter 6 with the special modifications noted below.

       1.     Declaration

             •    Site Name and Location
             •    Statement of Basis and Purpose
             •« - Assessment of the Site
             •    Description of the Selected Remedy: No Action
             •     Declaration Statement - None of the Section 121 statutory determinations
                   are necessary in this section.  Instead, a brief statement should be made
                   noting that no remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human
                   health and the environment.  It should also be noted whether a five-year
                   review is required.  A five-year review will be necessary under a "no action"
                   ROD when previous removal or remedial actions at the site result in the
                   implementation  of engineering  or  institutional  controls  to prevent
                   unacceptable exposures from hazardous substances and when these controls
                   will remain over the long-term.

             •     Signature and Support Agency Acceptance  of the Remedy

       2.     Decision Summary

                   Site Name, Location, and Description
                   Site History and Enforcement Activities
                   Highlights of Community Participation
                   Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action
                   Site Characteristics
                   Summary of Site Risks - The information presented in this section provides
                   the primary basis  for the "no action" decision. The  discussion should
                   support the determination that no remedial action is necessary to ensure
                   protection  of human  health and  the  environment.    This can  be
                   accomplished by demonstrating how the current and reasonable maximum
                   exposure scenarios considered under the baseline risk assessment indicate
                   that  unacceptable exposures will  not occur.  Any  exposure controls
                   implemented as part of previous actions that contribute to protection of
                   human health and the environment should be discussed.

-------
                                              OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                              9-6
                EXHIBIT 9-2 (continued)

          Documenting  a No  Action  Decision:
         Action Not  Necessary  for Protection
                    OUTLINE FOR THE ROD


     Decision .Summary (continued)
           Summary ef Comparative. Analysis ef Alternatives
           Selected Remedy
     *	Statutory Determinations
     *     Description of the "No Action" Alternative
     *     Explanation of Significant Changes

     Note: The ROD should not include the "Description of Alternatives" or "Summary
     of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives" sections.   If alternatives were
     developed in the FS, the RI/FS report should be referenced.

3.    Responsiveness Summary

-------
                                                          OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                       9-7
                                EXHIBIT  9-3

                 Documenting  a  No Action Decision:
               No CERCLA Authority to Take  Action
                       OUTLINE FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN

      The preparation of a Proposed Plan for this category of "no action" decision should follow
the guidance in Chapter 2 with the special modifications noted below.

      1.    Introduction

      2.    Site Description

      3.    Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action

      4.    Summary  of Site Risks

      -)»    vjUUUUAry  Ol AltCi TimlVCit

      G.    lJ.VdlUdtiQU OI AitCi JldUVCiS dltu U1G 1 TCIC1 JC-u AitCf .nAtlVC
       5.    Statutory Authority Finding • This section should explain that the EPA does not
            have authority under CERCLA section 104 to address the site or operable unit
            The statement also should note that the "no action" decision does not constitute
            a finding by the Agency that adequate protection has been achieved at the site.
            Rather, the statement should identify the statutory or regulatory authority that
            does have or potentially could have jurisdiction over the problem. If the site has
            been referred to the proper authorities, this should be explained in the Proposed
            Plan.

       6.    Community Participation - This section should provide standard information about
            how the public can participate in the remedy selection process.  It will not,
            however, solicit comment on  all  alternatives, since  only  one option is being
            proposed.

-------
                                                          OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                       9-8
                                EXHIBIT  9-4

                 Documenting  a  No  Action  Decision:
               No CERCLA Authority to Take  Action
                             OUTLINE FOR THE ROD

      The ROD to document a "no action" decision based on the lack of statutory authority
under CERCIA should be prepared following the guidance presented in Chapter 6 with the
special modifications outlined below.

      1.    Declaration

            »      Site Name and Location
            •      Statement of Basis and Purpose
            * - Assessment of the Site
            *      Description of the Selected Remedy:  No Action
            "»     ti r o tftiuiGry " i-/ ct C-TwiinACiofls
            *      Declaration  Statement » No Section  121 statutory determinations are
                   necessary in this section.  This section should explain that EPA does not
                   have authority under CERCLA section 104 to address the site or operable
                   unit.  The statement should note that the "no action" decision does not
                   constitute a finding by the Agency that adequate  protection has  been
                   achieved at  the site.  Rather, the statement should identify who has or
                   who potentially has the statutory or regulatory authority over the site. If
                   the site has  been referred to other authorities, this  should be explained.

            *      Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the Remedy

      2.    Decision. Summary

                   Site Name, Location, and Description
                   Site History and Enforcement Activities
                   Highlights of Community Participation
                   Scope and Role of Operable Unit or  Response Action
                   Site Characteristics
                   Summary of Site Risks
                        l)tlOl^ Ot yVltCmAtlVC-S
                          y oi t^oiiip
-------
                                                          OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                       9-9
                                EXHIBIT  9-5

                 Documenting  a  No Action Decision:
                      No Effective  Action  Possible
                       OUTLINE FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN

      The preparation of a Proposed Plan for a "no action" decision based on a determination
that remedial action would not be feasible or would cause adverse environmental impacts should
follow the guidance in Chapter 2 with the special modifications noted below.

      L    Introduction

      2.    Site Description

      3.    Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action

      4.    Summary of Site Risks
       0. : •i"ri ' - rrr- - -^yjiH^rtiOfl// Oi.y.AI^

       5.    Summary Rationale for No Action Decision - This section should explain the basis
            for the "no action" decision.  The basis will be related to the fact that greater
            adverse impacts would result from undertaking remedial action than from leaving
            the waste in place or that the problem is technically infeasible to remediate. The
            remedial alternatives that were considered, and the impact associated with them
            or their infeasibility, should be summarized in this  discussion as necessary.  A
            detailed comparative analysis need not be included.  A statement also should be
            included to the effect that this "no action" decision does not constitute a finding
            that the remedy ensures adequate protection of human health or the environment
            The need for a five-year review should be noted.

       6.    Community Participation

-------
                                                           OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                       9-10
                                 EXHIBIT 9-6

                 Documenting a No Action Decision:
                       No  Effective Action  Possible
                              OUTLINE FOR THE ROD

       The preparation of a ROD to document this category of "no action" decision should
follow the guidance in Chapter 6 with the special modifications noted below.

       1.     Declaration

             •     Site Name and Location
             •     Statement of Basis and Purpose
             *     Assessment ot tuc uitc
                   Description of the Selected Remedy
             •     Declaration Statement - This declaration should state that it has been
                   determined that no effective remedial action is possible at tbe site.  The
                   declaration should also explain  that the "no action" decision does not
                   constitute a finding that the remedy ensures adequate protection of human
                   health or the environment.  A statement that a five-year review will be
                   conducted should be included.

             •     Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the Remedy

             Decision Summary
                   Site Name, Location, and Description
                   Site History and Enforcement Activities
                   Highlights of Community Participation
                   Scope and Role of Operable Unit or  Response Action
                   Site Characteristics
                   Summary of Site Risks
       3.
£     "ot&iiitui*y~ j-xtccriiiiiiciLAuiis
•     Summary of Basis for "No Action" Decision  - The rationale for the "no
      action" decision should be provided. The remedial alternatives that were
      considered, and the impact associated with them or their feasibility, should
      be summarized in this discussion. A detailed comparative analysis using
      the nine evaluation criteria need not be included. A statement also should
      be included to the effect that this "no action"  decision does not constitute
      a finding that adequate protection of human  health and the environment
      has been achieved at the site.

•     Explanation of Significant Changes

Responsiveness Summary

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     9-11


9.2  DOCUMENTING INTERIM  ACTION DECISIONS

     During scoping or at other points  in  the  RI/FS process,  the lead agency
may determine that it is appropriate  to implement  an  interim  action at a site.
Interim actions, which may be removal or remedial  actions, can be taken to
respond to an immediate site threat or  to  take advantage of an opportunity to
significantly reduce risk quickly.   Interim actions are limited in scope and
are followed by other operable units  that  complete the steps  to provide
definitive protection of human health and  the  environment for the long-term.
Examples of interim actions include:  constructing a  fence to restrict access
to the site, pumping a ground-water aquifer to restrict migration of a
-contaminant plume, providing an alternative source of drinking water,
'providing bottled water, or constructing a temporary  cap.

     Proposed Plans and RODs prepared to support interim remedial action
decisions are generally more streamlined than  decision documents for more
comprehensive response actions.  The  documentation of interim action decisions
should be tailored to the limited scope and purpose of the interim action.  In
particular, the "Summary of Site Risks" discussion may be very brief,
providing information to support the  need  to take  action but  usually not
specifying final acceptable exposure  levels for the site; the complete
findings of the baseline risk assessment should be included in the decision
documents for future, final operable  units.  The number of alternatives
considered for interim actions should generally be limited to three or fewer
options, and the nine-criteria evaluation  limited  to  addressing factors
pertinent to the scope and purpose  of the  interim  action.  Likewise, the
section 121 statutory determinations  should not be made definitively for the
site as a whole; rather, the ROD should discuss how the interim action
fulfills those requirements within  its  limited scope.  Further details on
preparing Proposed Plans and RODs for interim  action  decisions are presented
in Exhibits 9-7 and 9-8.

9.3  DECISION DOCUMENTS WITH CONTINGENCY REMEDIES

     In general, the lead agency identifies a  preferred alternative in the
Proposed Plan and selects a single  remedy  in the ROD.  When selecting a
treatment technology to address the source of  contamination,  this typically
involves selection of a treatment class or family, such as thermal
destruction, rather than a specific technology process option, such as a

-------
                                                            OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                        9-12
                                 EXHIBIT 9-7

                Documenting Interim Action  Decisions
                        OUTLINE FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN

The Proposed Plan should include all of the sections outlbed in Chapter 2, with the followbg
modifications.

       \.     Introduction

       2.     Site Description - This section should focus on site characteristics addressed by
             the limited action.

       3.     Scope and Role of Operable Unit - This section of the document should specify
             how  the interim response  action fits into the overall site strategy.  The point
             should be made that, to the extent possible, the interim action will be consistent
             with  any planned future actions.

       4.     Summary of Site Risks - This section should provide the rationale for taking a
             limited action.  This should be supported by facts  that indicate the action is
             necessary to stabilize the site, prevent further degradation, or that the action can
             accomplish significant risk reduction quickly.  The information should relate only
             to the limited scope of the action. Qualitative risk information may be presented
             if quantitative details are not yet available, which will often be the case.

       5.     Summary  of Alternatives - A very  limited  number of alternatives  should be
             analyzed for  interim actions; in some  cases, only one plan of action  will be
             appropriate to consider.  The alternative descriptions should reflect the pertinent
             ARARs associated with the action. ARARs are important for the following aspects
             of an interim  action:  any portion of the remedy that is final, materials that are
             treated  or  managed  off-site,   and  any  release  that  will  occur  during
             implementation.  Requirements are not applicable or relevant and appropriate if
             they  are outside  the scope of the interim action.

       6.     Evaluation of Alternatives and the Preferred Alternative - The comparative analysis
             should be conducted in relation to  the limited role and scope of the remedy.
             Criteria that are not pertinent to the selection of interim actions (e.g., long-term
             effectiveness of a temporary cap) need not be addressed in detail.  Rather, their
             irrelevance to the remedy decision should be noted.

       7.     Statutory  Findings  • The findings should be discussed in terms of the limited
             scope of the action.

       8.     Community Participation

-------
                                                            OSWER  Directive 9355.3-02
                                        9-13
                                  EXHIBIT  9-8

                Documenting  Interim  Action  Decisions
                              OUTLINE FOR THE ROD

       The guidance for preparing RODs in Chapter 6 should be followed for preparing a ROD
documenting the selection of an interim action remedy, with the following modifications.

       1.     The Declaration

             *     Site Name and Location
             •     Statement of Basis and Purpose
             «     Assessment of the Site
             •     Description of Selected Remedy
             •     Declaration - The declaration statement should read as follows:

                   This  interim  action  is  protective  of  human  health  and  the
                   environment, complies with Federal and State applicable or relevant
                   and appropriate requirements directly associated with this  action,
                   and is cost-effective. This action utilizes permanent solutions and
                   alternative treatment  (or resource recovery)  technologies  to  the
                   maximum extent practicable, given the limited scope of the  action.
                   Because this  action does not constitute the final remedy for  the
                   [site/operable unit], the statutory preference for remedies that
                   employ treatment that reduces  toxicity, mobility, or volume as a
                   principal element [will not be satisfied by this interim action (or)
                   will  be addressed  at  the time  of  the  final response action].
                   Subsequent actions are  planned to  address  fully the principal
                   threats posed by this  [site/operable unit].

             •     Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the  Remedy

             Decision Summary
                   Site Name, Location, and Description
                   Site History and Enforcement Activities
                   Highlights of Community Participation
                   Scope and Role of Operable Unit • This section provides the rationale for
                   taking the limited action.  To the extent that information is available, the
                   section  should detail  how  the response action fits into the overall site
                   strategy.  The point  should be made that the interim action will be
                   consistent with any planned future actions, to the extent possible.

                   Site Characteristics - This section  should focus on the description of Site
                   characteristics to be addressed by the interim remedy.

-------
                                                     OSWER  Directive 9355.3-02
                                 9-14
                  EXHIBIT 9-8 (continued)

         Documenting  Interim Action  Decisions
                       OUTLINE FOR THE ROD
2.     Decision Summary (continued)

      •     Summary of Site Risks • This section should focus on risks addressed by
            the interim action and should provide the rationale for the limited action.
            This could be supported by facts that indicate that action is necessary to
            stabilize the site, prevent further degradation, or achieve significant risk
            reduction quickly.  Qualitative  risk information may be  presented if
            quantitative risk information is not yet available, which will often be the
            case.

      •     Description of Alternatives • This section should describe only the limited
            alternatives that were  considered for the  interim action.   The ARARs
            discussion should be incorporated, as appropriate, given the limited nature
            of the action.

      »     Summary of Comparative  Analysis of Alternatives  - The  comparative
            analysis should be presented in light of the limited  scope of the action.
            Criteria not  relevant  to  the  evaluation of interim actions  need not be
            addressed in detail.  Rather, their irrelevance to the decision should be
            noted briefly.

      •     Statutory Determinations - The interim action should protect human health
            and the environment from the exposure pathway or threat it is addressing,
            any releases generated, or the waste material that is managed. The ARARs
            discussion should focus only on those ARARs specific to the interim action
            — those related  to any final disposition of waste, off-site treatment or
            disposal, or releases caused during implementation.   An interim remedy
            waiver may be necessary in some situations. However, if an interim waiver
            is needed,  the final  remedy must comply with the requirement   The
            discussion of the use of treatment should indicate that the selected remedy
            represents the best balance of tradeoffs with respect  to pertinent criteria,
            given the limited scope of the action. The discussion  under the preference
            for treatment section should note that the preference will be  addressed in
            the final decision document for the site or operable  unit.

      •     Explanation of Significant Changes

3.     The Responsiveness Summary

-------
                                                      OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                      9-15
rotary kiln.  Selection of a  treatment  class affords the lead agency
flexibility during the remedial design  to  procure the most cost-effective
process through competitive bidding.2

     There are limited situations,  however,  in which additional flexibility
may be required to ensure implementation of  the most appropriate treatment
remedy for a site.   In such situations, the  lead agency may determine that a
decision document with a selected  remedy accompanied by a contingency remedy
is appropriate.

     The Agency developed this option  for  two purposes.  The first is to
promote the use of innovative technologies.   An innovative treatment
technology may appear to be the most appropriate remedy for a site or operable
unit during the RI/FS, but more testing is needed during remedial design to
verify the technology's expected performance potential.  If there are
uncertainties about  an innovative  treatment  technology, then the lead agency,
in consultation with the support agency, may elect to include a proven
technology as a contingency remedy in  the  Proposed Plan and ROD.  The second
situation that may be appropriate  for  contingency remedies is where two
different technologies under  consideration appear to offer comparable
performance on the basis of the five primary balancing criteria such that both
could be argued to provide the "best balance of tradeoffs."   Under such
circumstances, the Proposed Plan and ROD may identify one as the selected
remedy and the other as a contingency  remedy and specify the criteria whereby
the contingency remedy would  be implemented.

     9.3.1     Innovative  Technologies

     Treatability testing of  a technology  generally should be conducted during
the RI/FS.  However, it may not always  be  feasible to conduct sufficient
treatability testing during the RI/FS  to address all of the significant
uncertainties associated with an innovative  technology.  Therefore, the
analysis of alternatives in the FS, which  typically examines specific
differences between  cleanup options with respect to the five primary balancing
criteria, should be  significantly  less  definitive for innovative technologies.
    t\
     Similarly, when selecting containment technologies, the type of system should be described in terms
of basic characteristics, such as permeable, impermeable, double or single liner, without specifying what
materials will be used in the system (e.g., clay, synthetic).

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     9-16

The evaluation should focus instead on the expected performance potential and
uncertainties associated with these less proven technologies.  Based on
performance potential, an innovative technology may appear to provide the best
balance of tradeoffs from among the options considered, despite its
uncertainties.  Congress provided support for selecting innovative
technologies in such instances in CERCLA section 121(b)(2), which states:

          The President may select an alternative remedial action meeting
          the objectives of this subsection whether or not such action
          has been achieved in practice at any other facility or site
          that has similar characteristics.  In making such a selection,
          the President may take into account the degree of support for
          such remedial action by parties interested in the site.

Parties "interested in the site" include the lead agency,  support agency,
local community, PRPs, and other members of the public.

     Where an innovative technology is selected and its performance potential
is to be verified through additional testing conducted during RD/RA, a proven
treatment technology may be included in the Proposed Plan  and ROD as a
contingency remedy.  In the event that test results indicate that the
innovative technology will not fulfill  its performance expectations at that
site or operable unit, the contingency remedy could be implemented.

     9.3.2     Comparable Technologies

     It is possible that two alternatives could emerge from the FS that appear
to offer comparable performance with respect to the five primary balancing
criteria such that either one could provide the "best balance of tradeoffs."
This situation could only occur when two alternatives represent the same
overall cleanup approach (i.e.,  they would treat and contain the same
materials on the site) but vary in the particular type of  treatment technology
employed as the treatment component (e.g., bioremediation  vs. soil washing).
The alternatives could appear comparable either by offering identical
performance with respect to each of the five balancing criteria or, more
likely, the overall combination of tradeoffs they provide  are very similar.
In such cases,  one of the alternatives may be the selected remedy and the
other the contingency remedy that could be implemented after additional

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                     9-17

testing, PRP negotiations,  and the competitive bidding process  indicate  that
the contingency remedy would be a more favorable option.

     In the Proposed Plan,  the alternative proposed for selection  and  the
contingency alternative ideally should both be discussed  in the Preferred
Alternative section and discussed in relation to the evaluation criteria in
the Evaluation of Alternatives section.   Also, the criteria that would prompt
implementation of the contingency remedy should be identified.

     In the ROD, the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives section  should
discuss both alternatives in equal detail and the Selected Remedy  section
should establish the parameters of each  and provide the criteria by  which  the
contingency remedy would be implemented.  The Statutory Determinations section
should demonstrate how either remedy would meet CERCLA section  121
requirements.

     9.3.3     Documenting  Contingency Remedy Decisions

     In documenting selection decisions  involving a contingency remedy,  the
Proposed Plan should and the ROD must identify the preferred alternative or
selected remedy and the contingency remedy.  Ideally,  the Proposed Plan  should
identify the alternative proposed for selection and the contingency
alternative in the Preferred Alternative section along with the criteria that
would prompt implementation of the contingency alternative.  Both  options
should also be featured in  the Evaluation of Alternatives section  and
indicated as being able to  fulfill the statutory requirements of CERCLA
section 121.  If a contingency remedy is not contemplated at the time  of the
Proposed Plan, it may still be possible  to select a contingency remedy in  the
ROD provided that the contingency is a logical outgrowth  of the information
presented in the Proposed Plan (see Chapter 5 on Pre-ROD  significant-changes).
Whenever a contingency remedy is likely, the Proposed Plan should  inform the
public of that possibility.

     In the ROD, the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives section  should
discuss both remedies in similar detail  and the Selected  Remedy section  should
establish the parameters of each and provide the criteria by which the
contingency remedy would be implemented.  The Statutory Determinations section
should demonstrate how either remedy would fulfill section 121  requirements.

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     9-18

     If the lead agency determines that the contingency remedy should be
implemented, an "Explanation of Significant Differences" should be issued in
accordance with Chapter 8 of this guidance.  In addition,  the appropriate
Regional Coordinator at EPA Headquarters should be contacted if a contingency
remedy is being contemplated.   The outlines in Exhibits 9-9 and 9-10,
respectively, should be followed to prepare the Proposed Plan and ROD to
document selection of a contingency remedy.

-------
                                                            OSWER  Directive 9355.3-02
                                        9-19
                                  EXHIBIT  9-9


            Documenting Contingency Remedy Decisions



                        OUTLINE FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN

       The preparation of a Proposed Plan to document the decision to select a contingency
remedy should be based on the following outline.  All of the sections  listed in Chapter 2 should
be included, with the following modifications:

       1.     Introduction

       2.     Site Description

       3.     Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action

       4.     Summary of Site Risks

       5.     Summary of Alternatives - This section should identify any uncertainties that exist
             with the technologies being considered, and to what extent additional testing is
             needed.

       6.     Evaluation of Alternatives and the Preferred Alternative - All contingency options
             should be identified and  analyzed  fully with respect to the nine criteria.  The
             discussion should address any uncertainties involved with innovative technologies.
             In the discussion of community (and support agency) acceptance, the support of
             the interested  parties  should be discussed in light of the CERCLA provisions
             supporting selection of innovative technologies in section 121(b)(2). If comparable
             alternatives exist, this section should support the finding that  the contingency
             alternative provides similar tradeoffs with respect to the evaluation criteria. The
             preferred alternative and any contingency alternative  should be described, and
             performance expectations  and any uncertainties concerning use of the technology,
             identified.  If  comparable alternatives are selected, the contingency alternative
             should be described, focusing on how its performance is similar to that of the
             preferred alternative  in terms of the combination of tradeoffs they offer with
             respect to the  evaluation  criteria.

       7.     Statutory Determinations - This section should assert  that the preferred and
             contingency alternatives are  both expected to meet the statutory requirements
             based on currently available  information.

       8,     Community Participation

-------
                                                           OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                       9-20
                                EXHIBIT 9-10

           Documenting Contingency  Remedy  Decisions
                              OUTLINE FOR THE ROD

       The preparation of a ROD for decisions involving any type of contingency remedy should
be based on the following outline. The ROD should include all of the sections Usted in Chapter
6, with the following modifications:

       1.     Declaration

             •     Site Name and Location
             «     Statement of Basis and Purpose
             •     Assessment of the Site
             •     Description of the Selected Remedy - Both the selected remedy and any
                   contingency remedies should be described in bullet form.
                   oi.-
             •     Declaration - The Declaration should be modified to indicate that both the
                   selected  remedy  and the contingency remedy will meet  the  statutory
                   findings.

             •     Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the Remedy

       2.     Decision Summary

                   Site Name, Location, and Description
                   Site History and Enforcement Activities
                   Highlights of Community Participation
                   Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action
                   Site Characteristics
                   Summary of Site Risks
                   Description of Alternatives - This section should identify any uncertainties
                   concerning use of the technologies being considered and to what extent
                   additional testing is needed. The selected remedy and contingency remedy
                   must be fully described.

              •    Summary of  Comparative Analysis  • The  selected remedy  and  any
                   contingency alternative should be evaluated fully against the nine criteria.
                   The  uncertainties should  be  noted,  as  well  as the expectations for
                   performance.   In the discussion of community (and support  agency)
                   acceptance of an innovative  technology, the support of  the interested
                   parties should be discussed in light of the CERCLA provisions in section
                   121(b)(2). Where alternatives are cbosen because of their comparability,
                   this analysis should  provide support for that finding.

-------
                                                 OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                               9-21
                  Exhibit 9-10  (continued)

     Documenting Contingency Remedy  Decisions
                      OUTLINE FOR THE ROD


2.     Decision Summary (continued)

      •     Selected  Remedy  -  The selected  and contingency remedy should be
            identified.  If an  innovative technology is  identified  as  the preferred
            alternative, this section should describe what will happen if further testing
            determines that the preferred alternative is not effective or implementable.
            If comparable alternatives are selected, all should be described in detail.

      •     Statutory Determinations «The statutory determinations discussion should
            demonstrate that both remedies fulfill CERCLA section 121 requirements.

      •     Explanation of Significant Changes

3.     Responsiveness Summary

-------
     APPENDIX A
SAMPLE PROPOSED PLAN

-------
Superfund  Program
Proposed Plan
                                        Region  IV
EIO  Industrial Site
Nameless, Tennesse
                                  September 1988
EPA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED PLAN
  This Proposed Plan identifies the pre-
ferred option for cleaning up the contami-
nated soils at the EKD Industrial Site. In
addition, the Plan includes summaries of
other alternatives analyzed for this site.
This document is issued by the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
lead agency for site activities, and the
Tennessee Pollution Control Board (TPCB),
the support agency for this response action.
EPA, in consultation with the TPCB, will
select a final remedy forthe site only after
the public comment period  has ended
and the information submitted during this
time has been reviewed and considered.
  EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as
part of its public participation responsibili-
ties under section 117(a) of the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
This document summarizes information
that can be found in greater detail in the
Remedial Investigation and  Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) report and other docu-
ments contained in the administrative
record file for this site. EPA and the State
encourage the public to review these other
documents in  order to gain a more com-
prehensive understanding of the site and
Superfund activities that have been con-
ducted there.  The administrative record
                          Figure 1
         EIO Industrial Site and Surroundings
                Closed Lagoons
                     Area
     Q
 n  n   a

TCE-Contaminated Soil

Metals-Contaminated Soil

Private Wells
    Site Boundary

    Municipal Well

           * NOT TO SCALE
                                                        file, which contains the information upo
                                                        which the selection of the response ac
                                                        tion will be based, is available at th
                                                        following locations:

                                                          Nameless Public Library
                                                          125 Elm Street,
                                                          Nameless, TN 00000
                                                          (101)999-1099
                                                          Hours: Mon-Sat, 9 a.m.-9 p.m.

                                                                  and

                                                          U.S. EPA Docket Room,
                                                          Region IV
                                                          Federal Building, 10th Floor,
                                                          Atlanta, GA
                                                          (555)555-1212
                                                          Hours: Mon-Fri, 8:30 a.m.-
                                                          4:30 p.m.
                                                                   EPA, In consultation with the TPCB,
                                                                   may modify the preferred alterna-
                                                                   tive or select another response
                                                                   action presented In this Plan and
                                                                   the RI/FS Report based on new In-
                                                                   formation  or public comments.
                                                                   Therefore, the public Is encour-
                                                                   aged to  review and comment on
                                                                   all the alternatives identified here.
                                                                   Dates to remember:
                                                                   MARK YOUR CALENDAR

                                                                   October 3-24,1988:
                                                                   Public comment period on remedies
                                                                   to control contaminated soils.

                                                                   October 12,1988:
                                                                   Public meeting at Nameless Com-
                                                                   munity Hall, 123 Market  Road,
                                                                   Nameless, Tennessee at 7:30 p.m.

-------
SITE BACKGROUND
A HISTORY OF SEPTIC
WASTE DISPOSAL

  In 1947, the EIO Industrial Company
began disposing of septic waste at  its
plant located at 129  Franklin Street in
Nameless, Tennessee. In the late 1960s,
the company also began to accept ship-
ments of hazardous waste. Wastes were
stored in thirteen storage tanks at the
site.  The wastes subsequently were
pumped to eight unlined lagoons.  The
site ceased operation in August of 1980,
prior to enactment of the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

  During site operations, soils at the  5-
acre tank farm area were contaminated
by wastes spilled during pumping and
from leaking tanks. Although the lagoons
were emptied and backfilled with clean
soil by the EIO Company in  1981, the
subsurface soils in that 5-acre area were
contaminated.  In addition,  both the
municipal well, located  a mile from the
site, and several residential wells, located
within a half-mile, have been contami-
nated by wastes from the site.

  The site was placed  on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in 1982.   Between
1984 and 1986, the EIO Industrial Com-
pany conducted an RI/FS underthe guid-
ance of the TPCB, with EPA's oversight.
The RI/FS was conducted to identify the
types, quantities, and locations of con-
taminants and to develop ways of ad-
dressing the contamination problems. The
results of the RI/FS are as follows:

• On-site surface sorts in the former lagoon
  and tank farm area are contaminated
  with varying levels of lead, chromium,
  and cadmium;

• On-site subsurface  soils in the former
  lagoon  and  tank  farm  area are
  contaminated with trichloroethylene
  (TCE), other chlorinated aliphatic and
  polynudear aromatic hydrocarbons, and
  lead;

• A nearby municipal weU is contaminated;
  and

• A plume of contaminated ground water
  extends from the site to the XYZ River.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF
ACTION

  The problems at the EIO site are com-
plex.  As a result, EPA has divided the
work into three manageable components
called "operable units (OUs)." These are
as follows:

• OU One:  Contamination in the
            municipal well.

• OU Two:  Contamination of the
            ground-water aquifer.

• OU Three: Contamination in the soils.

  EPA  has  already  selected cleanup
remedies for OUs One and Two (the
municipal well and the contaminated ground
water).  The contaminated ground water
is a principal threat at this site because of
the potential for direct ingestion of con-
taminants through drinking  water wells.
Both of these actions are in the Remedial
Design  stage, which  means that  the
engineers are developing specific plans
for implementation of the remedy. Actual
construction is planned for March 1990.

  The third OU addresses the contami-
nated soils in the lagoon and tank farm
area.  This contiguous area was deter-
mined to be a principal threat at the site
because of the potential threat of direct
contact with the soils and the soil's impact
on ground water. The clean up objectives
f orthis OU are to prevent current or future
exposure to the contaminated soils through
treatment and/or containment, and to re-
duce the migration of contaminants from
the  soil to groundwater.

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

  During the RI/FS,  an analysis was
conducted to estimate the health or envi-
ronmental problems that could result if
the soil contamination at the  EIO site was
not  cleaned up.  This analysis is com-
monly referred to as a baseline risk as-
sessment.  In conducting this assess-
ment, the focus was on the health effects
that could result from direct exposure to
the  contaminants as a result of the soil
coming into contact with the skin, or from
direct ingestion  of  the  soil by a child
playing in the area. The analysis focused
on  the major contaminant of concern,
TCE. TCE is a volatile organic compound
that is known to cause cancer in labora-
tory animals and thus  is classified as a
carcinogen.  TCE is a highly mobile con-
taminant that typically  migrates through
the soil into the ground-water.

  EPA's sampling of the soil at the site
found that the average concentration of
TCE in the soils was 140 parts per million.
This concentration level is associated with
an  excess  lifetime cancer risk of 1Q-3.
This means that if no  cleanup action is
taken by EPA, one additional person per
one thousand has a chance of contract-
ing cancer as a result of the exposure to
TCE-contaminated soil.  This estimate
was developed  by taking into account
various conservative assumptions about
the likelihood of a person being exposed
to the soil and the toxicity of TCE.

  EPA and the  State  have determined
that in cleaning up the contaminated soil
at the EIO site to a concentration of 13
ppm of TCE, the excess lifetime cancer
risk posed by the site following remedia-
tion will be reduced to 104. This cleanup
target would reduce the probability  of
contracting cancer as  a  result of  expo-
sure to the contaminants in the soil to one
additional person in one million. Because
there  are no Federal  or State cleanup
standards for contamination in soil, this
cleanup target was established for this
site as part of the risk  assessment con-
ducted during the  RI/FS. The cleanup
target was established to reduce  direct
contact exposure to an acceptable level,
as well as to ensure that the migration of
the TCE into the ground water is mini-
mized.

  Actual  or  threatened releases  of
hazardous  substances from this  site.
if not addressed by the preferred alterna-
tive or one of the other active measures
considered, may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment.

-------
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
  The alternatives analyzedforOU Three
are presented below. These are num-
bered to correspond with the numbers in
the RI/FS Report. The alternatives forthe
soil cleanup are the following:
  Alternative 1:
  Alternative 2:
  Alternative 3:

  Alternative 4:
  Alternative 5:

  Alternative 6:
No Action.
Capping.
Excavation and Disposal
in an Off-site Landfill.
Excavation, Treatment
of Volatile Organic
Compounds in a
Vaporization Loop, Lime
Stabilization of Sols, and
Disposal On-site
Excavation and Off-site
Thermal Destruction.
Excavation, On-site
Thermal Destruction,
and Solidification.
  Common Elements. Except for the
"No Action" alternative, all of the alterna-
tives now being considered for the  site
would  Include a  number  of  common
components. Alternatives  3 through 6
include removal and/or treatment of the
storage tanks, 7,500 cubic yards (yd3) of
VOC-contaminated soils and 3,500 yd3 of
metal-contaminated soils from the lagoon/
tank farm area. Each alternative also in-
cludes long-term ground-water monitor-
ing in compliance with requirements of
RCRA Subpart F, 40  CFR §  264.100.
These monitoring  activities will be con-
ducted to gauge the effectiveness of the
selected  remedy.  In addition,  the State
will place a deed restriction  on the site to
prohibit soil excavation and construction
of buildings at the site. It also should be
noted that the wastes at the EIO site were
found to  be neither RCRA-listed wastes
nor RCRA-characteristic wastes.

Alternative 1:
NO ACTION

Capital Cost: 0'
Annual Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) Costs: 0'
Present Worth (PW):  0'
Months to Implement: None

   The Superfund program  requires  that
the "no action" alternative be evaluated
at every  site to establish a baseline for
comparison. Under this alternative, EPA
would take no further action at the site to
prevent exposure  to the soil contamina-
tion.
Alternative 2:
CAPPING

Capital Cost: $740,485*
Annual O&M Costs: $18,120"
PW: $910,260'
Months to Implement: 5*

  The contaminated soil would be ieft in
place and a 24-inch compacted cap would
be installed over the entire 10 acres of
contaminated surface soils in  the tank
f ami and lagoon areas. The cap would be
designed to meet the relevant and appro-
priate requirements  of RCRA  landfill
closure in 40 CFR §264.310, which, among
other things, specify that the permeability
of the cap must be less than or equal to
the permeability of the natural underlying
soils at the site.

Alternative 3:
EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL
IN AN OFF-SITE LANDFILL

Capital Cost:  $18,188,000'
Annual O&M Costs: $26,200'
PW: $18,433,480'
Months to Implement: 7'

  All 11,000 yd3 of contaminated soils
from the  10-acre tank farm and  lagoon
area would be excavated and hauled to
an off-site,  permitted  RCRA Subtitle C
landfill, and the excavated area would be
regraded and backfilled with clean soil.
This process would be conducted i n com-
pliance with the RCRA requirements for
clean closure of a landfill. Under these re-
quirements, all contaminants would be
excavated and the need  for long-term
                                                               monitoring and maintenance of the tar
                                                               farm and lagoon area would be  elirr
Aiternative 4:
EXCAVATION,
VOLATILIZATION,
STABILIZATION, AND
DISPOSAL ON-SITE

Capital Cost: $4,666,000'
Annual O&M Costs: $41,000'
PW: $5,050,150'
Months to Implement:  12-15'

  The 7,500 yds of VOC-contaminatei
soils from the tank f anrrvlagoon area wouk
be  excavated.  To remove the highl;
mobile VOCs, a low-temperature volatili
zation step would  be inserted  into the
cleanup process between excavation an<
landlilllng.   Granular activated career
(GAC) canisters would separate the vola
tile  contaminants from the  soils teavinc
only the less mobile organic  and meta
compounds in the soil to be  landfllled on
site.  Approximately 99 percent of the
VOCs would be  removed by this treat
ment process.  The used carbon canis-
ters would be shipped off-site to be re-
generated.

  The treated soils would then be re-
turned to the lagoon/tank farm area anc
stabilized  with the 3.500 yd3 of metal-
contaminated soils not excavated. The
lagoon/tank farm area would be regraded
and revegetated and capped in accor-
dance with the relevant and appropriate
requirements of RCRA landfill closure in
40 CFR §264.310.
                                           THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: NUMBER 4
                                         EXCAVATION, TREATMENT, ON-SITE DISPOSAL
                                           Excavation

                                          of 7.500 yd'ol

                                            VOC-

                                          Centamlnat*d

                                           hot spot*
                                 Temperature

                                 Volatilization
         Lagoon/ Tan*

         FarmAroa
                           • 7.500 yd'voc-

                            Cantamln«t«d
                            Hoi Spotn

                             TCE-   140 ppm

                             Banian* 40 ppm

                                 >
                           • 3 500 yd heavy
                               7
                            metal* contaminated

                            Soil*

                              Pb 30 ppm
                              Cd 17 ppm

                              Cr' 12 ppm

                            TO carclno0anlc

                            risk I*V«I
                 • Amount d«t»rmln*d

                   by f •!• and

                   uantport motiving

                   and

                 •«»mp«rtfl»n«

                   analyst during

                   •xoavatlon precoaa
1
F
Activated
CanliUrt


          Off-SIU


          Subtitle C

          Otiposal
   LandfM

  ClOflur* •!

 Laqoon/Tank

  Farm Area
• Lontf-Torm OftM

  • Cap Integrity

 •- QW Monitoring

• Expoturo Lovol »t 1 0 '
* 0««d tattrtettom

• capital Co*t«S4 7M

• Annual 0*M $4 t.000
 ' All costs and implementation times are estimated.

-------
Alternative 5:
EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE
THERMAL DESTRUCTION

Capital Cost: $39,056,421'
Annual O&M Costs: $26,200'
PW: $39,301,905"
Months to Implement: 36 to 72'

  All 11,000 yd3 of contaminated soils
would be excavated, transported, and
destroyed in an off-site thermal destruc-
tion unit.  This thermal destruction proc-
ess would address the VOCs in the soil;
however, metals would remain in the ash
and would require proper disposal. The
excavation process would leave the site
"clean," consistent with the relevant and
appropriate  requirements  of  RCRA
closure, and requiring no long-term man-
agement  controls. The off-site thermal
destruction unit would comply with tech-
nical standards  for incinerators,  which
include having stack scrubbers and other
recovery mechanisms to ensure that no
untreated  hazardous  substances  are
released Into the environment.  The  in-
cinerator would destroy 99 percent of the
VOCs in the contaminated soils. The re-
sulting ash would be properly  handled
and disposed of by the operators of the
thermal destruction unit. The RCRA facil-
ity must be in compliance with the Super-
fund off-site policy before waste could be
transported there.

Alternative 6:
EXCAVATION, ON-SITE
THERMAL DESTRUCTION,
AND SOLIDIFICATION

Capital Cost: $42,463,300'
Annual O&M Costs: $26,200'
PW: $42,708,780'
Months to Implement: 30'
  A mobile, thermal destruction unit would
be brought to the site, and 11,000 yd3 of
contaminated soils would be excavated
and  destroyed  on-site.   This thermal
destruction process would address the
VOCs, but the metals in the soil would re-
main in  the  ash.  The excavation  and
backfilling process would comply with the
relevant and appropriate requirements of
RCRA closure.  The on-site thermal de-
struction unit would comply with technical
standardsforincinerators. Off-gases and
scrubber wastes from the thermal de-
struction unit would be collected and dis-
posed of. This incinerator would destroy
99 percent of the VOCs in the soil. Resid-
ual metals and  ash would be solidified
and disposed off-site in a RCRA Subtitle
C facility.
'All costs and implementation times are
estimated.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
  The preferred alternative for clean-
Ing up the soil* (the source control
operable unit) at the EK> sits Is Alter-
native 4 - Excavation, Volatilization,
Stabilization,  and Disposal On-sHs.
Based on current Information, this alter-
native would appear to provide the best
balance of trade-offs among the alterna-
tives with respect to nine criteria that EPA
uses to evaluate alternatives.  This sec-
tion profiles the performance of the pre-
ferred alternative against the nine crite-
ria, noting how it compares to the other
options under consideration. A glossary
of the evaluation criteria is noted below.
  GLOSSARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
  > Overall Protection of Human Health
   and Environment addresses whether
   or not a  remedy provides adequate
   protection and describes how risks posed
   through each pathway are eliminated,
   reduced, or controlled through treatment
   engineering controls  or  institutional
   controls.

   Compliance with ARARs addresses
   whether or not a remedy will meet all of
   the applicable or relevant and appropriate
   requirements of other Federal and State
   environmental statutes and/or provide
   grounds for  invoking a waiver.

   Long-term sffsctivsnsss  and
   permanence refers to the magnitude
   of  residual  risk  and  the ability of a
   remedy to maintain reliable protection
   of human health and the environment
   over time once  cleanup goals have
   been met.

   Reduction  of toxleKy, mobility, or
   volume  through treatment is the
   anticipated performance of the treatment
   technologies that may be employed in
   a remedy.
  Short-term effectiveness refers to the
  speed with which the remedy achieves
  protection, as well as the remedy's
  potential to create adverse impacts on
  human health and the environment that
  may result during the construction and
  implementation period.

  Implementablllty is the technical and
  administrative feasibility of a remedy,
  including  the availability of materials
  and services needed to implement the
  chosen solution.

  Cost includes  capital  and operation
  and maintenance costs.

  Stats Acceptance indicates whether,
  based on its review of the RI/FS and
  Proposed Plan, the State concurs with,
  opposes, or has no comment on the
  preferred alternative.

  Community   Acceptance  will   be
  assessed in the Record  of Decision
  fotowing a review of the public comments
  received on the RI/FS report and the
  Proposed Plan.
Analysis

  Overall Protection. All of the alterna-
tives, with the exception of the "no action*
alternative, would provide adequate pro-
tection of human heath and the environ-
ment by eliminating, reducing, or control-
ling risk through treatment, engineering
controls,  or institutional controls.  The
preferred alternative would treat the vola-
tile organic contaminants in the soils, sta-
bilize the  remaining wastes, and cap the
remaining residuals to reduce the risks
associated with direct contact, and mini-
mize the migration of contamination from
the ground water.

  Because the "no action" alternative is
not protective of human health and the
environment, it is not considered further
in this analysis as an option for this site.

  Compliance with ARARs. All alterna-
tives would meet their respective appli-
cable or relevant and appropriate require-
ments of Federal and State environmental
laws.  Although the preferred alternative
would involve the excavation and place-
ment  of  waste, thus making the land
disposal  restrictions   (LDR) potential
ARARs, TCE-contaminated soil at this
site is not a RCRA hazardous waste and
therefore  these requirements are not ap-
plicable. The U.S. EPA is undertaking an
LDR rulemaking that will specifically ap-
ply to soil  and debris. Until that rulemak-
ing is completed, the CERCLA program
will not consider the land disposal restric-
tions to be relevant and appropriate to soil
and debris that does not contain RCRA-
restricted wastes.  All options would in-
volve meeting the relevant  and appropri-

-------
ate RCRA closure requirements. No waiver
from ARARs is necessary to implement
any of the active cleanup options.

  Long-term effectiveness and perma-
nence.  The preferred alternative would
reduce the inherent hazards posed by the
volatile organic  compounds in the con-
taminated soils.  The treated soils would
still be contaminated  with other organic
and metal compounds; however, the long-
term risks of exposure to the remaining
contaminants in the soils would be re-
duced by stabilizing and sealing the soils
in the capped area, which would prevent
migration of the contaminants to ground
water, surface water, air, and other soils.
A ground-water monitoring system would
be installed around the lagoon/tank farm
area to  assess  the effectiveness of the
treatment and disposal in the closed area.

  Alternatives 5 and 6 would permanently
destroy  most of the organic soil contami-
nation (TCE, PAHs). The ash generated
by the thermal  destruction units,  how-
ever, would be  contaminated by those
metal compounds not destroyed by this
process. Under Alternative 5, the ash
would be disposed of in an off-site landfill
to protect against risks of future human
contact.  Under Alternative 6, the con-
taminated ash would be solidified to pre-
vent the possibility of human contact. The
solidified waste would be stored in a newly
constructed on-site RCRA Subtitle C landfill

  Alternative 6 would remove all waste to
a permitted, off-site landfill, thereby elimi-
nating the long-term risks of exposure at
the EIO site. As  with all landfills, the long-
term effectiveness of the containment
system  may need to be retrofitted or  re-
placed.  While the off-site disposal option
eliminates on-site risks, off-site disposal
without  treatment is the least preferred
option under CERCLA
  The cap that would be implemented in
Alternative 2 would provide long-term re-
ductions in the amount of water that oth-
erwise would pass through the contami-
nated soils. This would reduce the gen-
eration of contaminated leachate that could
migrate to the groundwater. Because the
highly-mobile  VOCs will not be treated,
the contaminated soils that constitute a
principal threat would remain at the site
and would pose potential long-term risks
of exposure.   The cap's effectiveness
would be evaluated through long-term
monitoring. The cap would require long-
term maintenance, and portions of It might
need to be replaced in the future.

  Reduction  of Toxlclty, Mobility, or
Volume of the Contaminants Through
Treatment Only three of the alternatives
would treat the wastes  to  reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the organ-
ics. Alternative 4 would involve treatment
of the most mobile contaminants, the
volatile organic compounds.  The treated
soils would still be co ntaminated with less-
mobile organic and metal compounds.
These soils would be stabilized with the
metal-contaminated soils in  the  lagoon/
tank farm area and the area would then
be capped.

  Alternatives 5 and 6 both would involve
incineration processes that would perma-
nently destroy the organic contaminants.
The contaminated ash would be disposed
of in a RCRA landfill. Alternatives 2 and 3
achieve no reduction in toxicity, mobility,
or volume.

  Short-term effectiveness.  Alterna-
tive 4 would contain the treated soils and
reduce the possibility of direct human
contact with contaminants in the least
amount of time, compared with the other
alternatives, except Alternative 2 (i.e.,
capping).  Under the preferred alterna-
tive, onca the volatile organic compounds
have been collected in canisters, there is
some minor, short-term risk of exposure
to the community during transportation of
the canisters to a treatment facility. All of
the alternatives that include excavation
wouid  pose some  short-term  risks of
exposure to VOCs during the excavation
process.

  Because the  capacity of on-site  and
off-site thermal  destruction units is  lim-
ited, under Alternatives 5 and 6, contami-
nated soils would be stockpiled for up to
six years.  Under these two alternatives,
the risks of direct contact with stockpiled,
contaminated soils would be increased
until  incineration has been  completed
because of dust.  In addition, there are
some risks of exposure to air emissions
from the incinerators and the piles.

  Implementabillty. Alternatives 2, 3,
and 4 have few associated administrative
difficulties that could delay implementa-
tion.  The remedies have been used suc-
cessfully to address similar contaminants
at other Superfund sites, and the skilled
workers needed to construct the  reme-
dies are readily available in the area.  The
long-term monitoring that would be re-
quired to establish the continued viability
of the preferred alternative would be less
extensive than would be necessary for
Alternative 2. The activated carbon can-
isters that are part of the vaporization
step used in the preferred alternative are
available in the area. In contrast, there is
uncertainty about the availability of ade-
quate capacity at an off-site incinerator.
This could lead to delays of up to six years
in implementing Alternative 5. Because
there is only one mobile incinerator that
could be used at the site, the implemen-
tation of Alternative 6 may take over two
years to complete.
    THE COMMUNITY'S ROLE IN THE SELECTION PROCESS


      EPA solicits input from the community on the cleanup methods proposed for each Superfund response action. EPA has
    set a public comment period from October 3 through November 5,1988, to encourage public participation in the selection
    process. The comment period includes two public meetings at which EPA, with the TPCB, will present the RI/FS Report and
    Proposed Plan, answer questions, and accept both oral and written comments.

      A public meeting is scheduled for 7:30 p.m., October 2,1988, and will be held at the Nameless Community Hail, 123 Mar-
    ket Road, In Nameless, TN.

      Comments will be summarized and responses provided in the Responsiveness Summary section of the Record of Decision
    (ROD). The ROD is the document that presents EPA's final selection forcleanup. To send written comments or obtain further
    information, contact:

                                                       Jane Doe
                                            Community Relations Coordinator,
                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                         123 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 00000
                                        (555) 555-4640. Toll-free 1 (800) 333-1515
                                    between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (Monday - Friday)

-------
  Cost  The present-worth cost of the
preferred alternative is $5,050.150. The
lowest-cost alternative is Alternative 2 at
$910,260. The highest-cost alternative is
Alternative 6 at $42.708,780. Alternative
3 has a present-worth cost of $18,433,480
and Alternative 5 has a cost of $39,301,905.

  State acceptance. The State of Ten-
nessee supports the preferred alternative
without comment.

  Community Acceptance.  Commu-
nity acceptance of the preferred alterna-
tive will be evaluated after the public com-
ment period ends and will be described in
the Record of Decision for the site.
SUMMARY OF THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

  In summary, Alternative 4 would achieve
substantial risk reduction through treat-
ment of the principal threat remaining at
the site (i.e., the mobile lagoon waste)
and by providing for the safe manage-
ment of other materal that will remain at
the site. Alternative 4 achieves this risk
reduction more quickly and at substan-
tially less  cost  than any of  the other
treatment  options.  Therefore, the pre-
ferred alternative Is believed to  provide
the best balance of trade-offs among
alternatives with respect to the evaluation
criteria.  Based on the information avail-
able at this time, EPA and the State of
Tennessee believe the preferred alterna-
tive would be protective of human health
and the environment, would comply with
ARARs, would be cost effective, and would
utilize permanent solutions and alterna-
tive treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum
extent  practicable.   Because it would
treat the  VOC contaminants in the soil,
the remedy also would meet the statutory
preference for the use of a remedy that
involves treatment as a  principal  ele-
ment.
THE WORD NOTEBOOK
Specialized terms used elsewhere in
this Proposed Plan are defined below.

activated carbon canister* (ACCa) --
a treatment system  in which contami-
nants are removed from air as it passes
through canisters containing  activated
carbon.

Applicable or R»t*vant and Appropri-
ate Requirement* (ARARa) - the Fed-
eral and State requirements that a se-
lected remedy will attain. These require-
ments may vary among sites and alter-
natives.

chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon*
(CAM*) - organic compounds composed
of carbon, hydrogen, and chlorine that
may vaporize easily.  Those CAHs typi-
cally found at hazardous waste sites
have been used as degreasers and sol-
vents. Some CAHs can cause cancer,
and some depress the central nervous
system.  Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a
CAM.

contaminant plume ~  A column  of
contamination with measurable horizon-
tal and vertical dimensions that Is sus-
pended in and moves with ground water.

ground water- underground waterthat
fills pores in soils or openings In rocks to
the point of saturation.  Unlike surface
water, ground water cannot clean itself
by exposure to sun or filtration. Ground
water is often used as a source of drink-
ing water via municipal or domestic wells.
leachate --  a liquid  that has  passed
through wastes and contains some com-
ponents of the wastes.

lead -- an element that is used in the
manufacture of batteries and pigments.
It Is also still added to some types of
gasoline  to   improve  octane   ratings.
Exposure to low levels of lead over long
periods can cause brain, bone, and neuro-
logical damage. It also can cause learn-
ing disabilities in children.

monitoring- ongoing collection of infor-
mation about the environment that helps
gauge the effectiveness of a  cleanup
action. Monitoring wells drilled at differ-
ent levels at the EIO Industrial site would
be used to detect any leaks in the landfill
liners.

organic compound* - carbon com-
pounds, such as solvents, oils, and pesti-
cides, none of which tend to dissolve
readily in  water.  Some organic com-
pounds can cause cancer.

polynuclear  aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH*) - organic chemical compounds
that are composed of carbon and hydro-
gen, including materials such as oil, pes-
ticides, and solvents.  Some PAHs are
carcinogenic.

revegetate - to  replace topsoil, seed,
and mulch on prepared soil to prevent
wind and water erosion.
source control - a remedy that ad-
dresses contamination problems at their
source, rather than at some other point
along the chain of exposure. At the EIO
Industrial site, for example, the source of
potential ground-water and air contami-
nation is lodged in the soils at the site.

solidification - a process used to re-
duce the mobility of contaminants by mixing
the waste with a material such as cement
kiln dust.  Solidification allows for Im-
proved handling of the waste and makes
the contaminants less likely to leach.

thermal destruction- high temperature
burning of materials to destroy hazard-
ous compounds.

volatile organic compound* (VOC*) -
organic compounds that vaporize easily.
Some VOCs have been shown to cause
leukemia; some are toxic to the kidney
and liven and some depress the central
nervous system, causing drowsiness.

-------
                                               MAILING LIST


  K you did not receive this Proposed Plan in the mail and wish to be placed on the mailing list for future publications pertaining to
this site, please fill out, detach, and mail this form to:

                                                     Jane Doe
                                           Community Relations Coordinator
                                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                123 Peachtree Street
                                                 Atlanta, GA  00000
  Name.
  Address.
  Affiliation	

  Phone(    ).

-------
                                APPENDIX B

       WORKSHEETS FOR THE  SUMMARY COMPARATIVE
                     ANALYSIS  OF  ALTERNATIVES
     This appendix  includes worksheets  (Exhibit B-2)  that could be used to
assist in preparing the  "Evaluation  of  Alternatives"  section of the Proposed
Plan and the "Comparative Analysis of Alternatives"  section of the ROD.  These
worksheets are optional  tools.*   Worksheets  are included for each of the nine
evaluation criteria.  Separate formats  have  been developed for the two
threshold criteria, the  five  balancing  criteria, and  the two modifying
considerations.**   In general, each  worksheet includes:   the relevant
questions that should be addressed under  each criterion; space for listing
each alternative; and additional  space  for notes.  The first Exhibit B-l, is
an example of a completed comparative analysis worksheet for the primary
balancing criterion long-term effectiveness  and permanence.  The last exhibit
in this appendix, B-3, presents  a format  for summarizing the results of the
comparative analysis for the  ROD.

     In preparing the Proposed Plan,  these worksheets could be used to outline
how all alternatives compare  to  the  preferred alternative.  In preparing the
ROD, the worksheets can  assist in identifying the  most significant advantages
and disadvantages among  alternatives.   This  will facilitate a logical
presentation of the comparative  analysis  in  which  alternatives are discussed
under each individual criterion,  beginning with the alternative that performs
best in that category and continuing  through the other options in sequence.
The individual notes and summary  exhibit  at  the end of this Appendix may also
prove a useful tool for  briefing  the  Regional  Administrator or the State
Director on the findings in support  of  the Proposed Plan or the ROD.
     If they are used, the worksheets should not be included in the administrative record file.

     The two threshold criteria are overall protection of human health and the environment and
     compliance with ARARs.  The five balancing criteria are:  long-term effectiveness and permanence;
     reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness;
     implementability; and cost.  The two modifying considerations are state/support agency acceptance
     and community acceptance.

-------
                                          EXHIBIT  B-l
                             EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETED
                     COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS  WORKSHEET
CRITERION:   Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
           Analysis Factor
                 Specific Factor Considerations
   Magnitude of residual risks
o
o
                                     o
   Adequacy and reliability of controls   o
                                     o
                                     o
                                     o
                                     o
What is the magnitude of the remaining risks?
What remaining sources of risk can be identified?  How much is
due to treatment residuals, and how much is  due to  untreated
residual contamination?
Will a five-year review be required?

What is the likelihood that the technologies will meet required
process efficiencies  or performance specifications?
What type and degree  of long-term management is required?
What are the requirements for  long-term monitoring?
What operation and maintenance functions must be performed?
What difficulties and uncertainties  may be associated with long-
term operation and maintenance?
What is  the potential  need  for  replacement  of  technical
components?
What is the magnitude of the threats or risks should the remedial
action need replacement?
What is the degree of confidence that  controls  can adequately
handle potential problems?
What are the uncertainties associated with land disposal of residuals
and untreated wastes?
      ALTERNATIVE
                   NOTES
   Incineration of TCE-
   contaminated Soil, Ground-
   Water Pump and Treat,
   In-situ Fixation of Lead-
   contaminated Soil, Cap
   In-situ Soil Vapor Extraction
   of TCE-contaminated Soil, In-situ
   Fixation of Lead-contaminated
   Soil, Cap, Ground-Water Pump and
   Treat
       Risks of direct contact eliminated.

       Current and future risks from ground-water ingestion reduced to
       10"6.

       If metals are present, ash will be disposed in RCRA landfill.

       O&M required for ground-water treatment and cap.  Failure of
       cap would have little effect because soil would be fixed.

       Current and future risk of direct contact eliminated.  Current and
       future risk from ingestion of contaminated ground water reduced
       to  1(T6.

       May need additional controls if fixation process does not meet
       performance specifications.

       O&M needed for cap and ground-water controls. Failure of cap
       would have little effect on ground water because of soil fixation,
       although direct contact may be a concern.

-------
                                   EXHIBIT B-l  (continued)
CRITERION:   Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
3.
In-situ Soil Vapor Extraction
of TCE-contaminated Soil, Cap
of Lead-contaminated Soil,
Ground-Water Pump and Treat
4.
Cap of TCE- and Lead-
contaminated Soils, Natural
Attenuation of Ground Water
5.  No Action
Risk of direct contact with soil is controlled.  Inherent hazards of
of TCE-contaminated material reduced to health-based levels.
Current and future risk of exposure to ground water reduced to
10"6 cancer risk level.

May need additional controls if metals are present in the TCE-
contaminated area because vapor extraction would not remove
metals.  Such as yet unidentified metals could leach to ground
water.

O&M required for ground-water treatment  for 25-40 years. Long-
term maintenance of cap required.  Potential failure of cap would
result in longer ground-water restoration timeframe.

Risks of direct contact eliminated as long as cap maintained.
However, inherent hazard of waste remains. There is a  potential
for cap  to fail. Cap will  need maintenance and replacement  in
future.

Current risk of exposure  from ground-water ingestion eliminated
by providing alternative water supply.  Institutional controls used
to control future use of ground water.

Potential failure of institutional controls may result in exposure to
contaminated ground water during attenuation period.

Existing risk remains. Future risk greater as plume migrates to
residents.  Eventually natural attenuation may decrease risk.

No controls over remaining contamination.  No long-term
management  employed.

-------
                                    EXHIBIT  B-2
                      WORKSHEET  FOR THE SUMMARY
              COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES


THRESHOLD CRITERION :   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
      QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS*.

      o      Bow does the remedy eliminate, reduce or control risks posed through each pathway through
             treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls?

      o      Are there any unacceptable short-term or cross-media impacts associated with the remedy?

      o      For carcinogens, will exposure levels be brought within the risk range?
                                                                      PROVIDES
                                                                      ADEQUATE
      ALTERNATIVE                      NOTES                            PROTECTION?
                                                                        (Y/N)

-------
                             EXHIBIT  B-2 (continued)
THRESBOLD CRITERIOH:   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
      ALTERHATITE                                          NOTES

-------
                               EXHIBIT B-2  (continued)
THRESHOLD CHITERIOH:    Compliance with ARARs
       QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS:

       o      Compiles with chemical-specific, location-specific, or action-specific ARARs?

       o      If necessary, can a waiver be justified?

       o      Compliance with other guidance,  criteria, or advisories lead and  support agencies have
              agreed are "to be considered" for the action.
       ALTEBHATIVE                        NOTES                               ATTAINS ARARs?
                                                                                (Y/N)

-------
                            EXHIBIT  B-2 (continued)
THRESHOLD CRITERIOH:   Compliance with ARARs






      ALTERHATIVE                                         NOTES

-------
                                  EXHIBIT B-2  (continued)
PRIMARY BALANCING  CRITERION:   Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
           Analysis Factor
   Magnitude of residual risks
   Adequacy and reliability of controls  o
                 Specific Factor Considerations
o     What is the magnitude of the remaining risks?
o     What remaining sources of risk can be identified?  How much is
      due  to treatment residuals, and how much is due to untreated
      residual contamination?
o     Will a 5-year review be required?

      What is the likelihood that the technologies will meet requirec
      process efficiencies or performance specifications?
o     What type and degree of long-term management is required?
o     What are  the requirements for long-term monitoring?
o     What operation and maintenance functions must be performed?
0     What difficulties and uncertainties may be associated with long-
      term operation and maintenance?
o     What  is  the  potential  need  for  replacement  of  technical
      components?
o     What is the magnitude of the threats or risks should the remedial
      action need replacement?
O     What is the degree of confidence that controls can adequatel;
      handle potential problems?
o     What are the uncertainties associated with land disposal of residuals
      and  untreated wastes?
        ALTERNATIVE
                              NOTES

-------
                             EXHIBIT  B-2 (continued)
FBOUBX BALAHCIHG CHITERIOH:   Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
      ALTERKATIVE                                          NOTES

-------
                              EXHIBIT  B-2  (continued)
PRIMARY BALAHCIBG  CRITERION:   Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

Analysis Factor
Treatment process and remedy

Amount of hazardous material
destroyed or treated


Reduction in toxicity, mobility,
or volume


frreversibility of the treatment
Type and quantity of treatment
residual

Statutory preference for treatment
as a principal element


o
o
o

o

0 '

o
0
0
o
o
o
0
0

Specific Factor Considerations
Does the treatment process employed address the principal threats?
Are there any special requirements for the treatment process?
What portion (mass, volume) of contaminated material is
destroyed?
What portion (mass, volume) of contaminated material is
treated?
To what extent is the total mass of toxic contaminants
reduced?
To what extent is the mobility of toxic contaminants reduced?
To what extent is the volume of toxic contaminants reduced?
To what extent are the effects of treatment irreversible?
What residuals remain?
What are their quantities and characteristics?
What risks do treatment residuals pose?
Are principal threats within the scope of the action?
Is treatment used to reduce inherent hazards posed by prbcipa
threats at the site?

       ALTERNATIVE
NOTES

-------
                             EXHIBIT B-2 (continued)
PRIMARY BALAKIBG CRITERION:  Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment






      ALTERNATIVE                                          NOTES

-------
                                  EXHIBIT B-2  (continued)
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION:   Short-term Effectiveness
           Analysis Factor
                 Specific Factor Considerations
   Protection of community during
   remedial actions
   Protection of Workers during
   remedial actions
   Environmental impacts
   Time until remedial response
   objectives are achieved
o     What are the risks to the community that must be addressed?
o     How will the risks to the community be addressed and mitigated?
o     What risks  remain to the community that cannot be  readily
      controlled?

o     What are the risks to the workers that must be addressed?
o     What risks remain to the workers that cannot be readily controlled?
0     How will  the risks to the workers be  addressed and mitigated?

o     What environmental impacts are expected with the construction
      and implementation of the alternative?
o     What are the available mitigation measures to be used and what
      is their  reliability to minimize potential impacts?
o     What are the impacts that cannot be avoided should the alternative
      be implemented?

o     How long until protection against  the threats being addressed
      by the specific action  is achieved?
o     How long until any remaining site threats will be addressed?
o     How long until remedial response objectives are achieved?
       ALTERNATIVE
                              NOTES

-------
                              EXHIBIT B-2  (continued)
PRIMARY BALAHCIHG CRITERION:   Short-term Effectiveness
      ALTERNATIVE                                            NOTES

-------
                              EXHIBIT B-2  (continued)
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION:  Implementability - Technical Feasibility


Analysis Factor
Technical Feasibility
Ability to construct and operate
technology
Reliability of technology
Ease of undertaking additional
remedial action, if necessary
Monitoring considerations
Specific Factor Considerations
o What difficulties may be associated with construction?
O What uncertainties are related to construction?
o What is the likelihood that technical problems will lead to schedul
delays?
o What likely future remedial actions may be anticipated?
o How difficult would it be to implement the additional remedia
actions, if required?
o Do migration or exposure pathways exist that cannot be monitoret
adequately?
o What risks of exposure exist should monitoring be insufficient tc
detect failure?

       ALTERNATIVE
NOTES

-------
                              EXHIBIT B-2 (continued)
PRIMARY BALAHCIHG  CRITERION:  Implementability - Administrative Feasibility

Analysis Factoi;
Administrative Feasibility
Coordination with other agencies
Specific Factor Considerations

o What steps are required to coordinate with other agencies?
o What steps are required to set up long-term or future coordination
among agencies?
o Can permits for offsite activities be obtained if required?

      ALTERNATIVE                                            NOTES

-------
                                   EXHIBIT  B-2  (continued)
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION:    Implementability - Availability of Service and Materials
           Analysis Factor
   Availability of Services and Materials
   Availability of treatment, storage
   capacity, and disposal services
   Availability of prospective
   technologies
                                      o
                                      o
                                      o
   Availability of necessary equipment   o
   and specialists                      o
                                      o
o

o

o
o
                  Specific Factor Considerations
      Are adequate treatment, storage capacity, and disposal services
      available?
      How much additional capacity is necessary?
      Does the lack of capacity prevent implementation?
      What  additional  provisions are required to ensure the needec
      additional capacity?
Are the necessary equipment and specialists available?
What additional equipment and specialists are required?
Does the lack of equipment and specialists prevent implementation?
What additional provisions  are  required to  ensure the needed
equipment and specialists?

Are technologies under consideration generally available and
sufficiently demonstrated for the specific application?
Will technologies require further development before they can be
applied full-scale to the type of waste at the  site?
When should the technology be  available for full-scale use?
Will more than one vendor be available to  provide a competitive
bid?
        ALTERNATIVE
                               NOTES

-------
                              EXHIBIT  B-2  (continued)
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERION:   Cost
      QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS:
      o      What are the estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs?
      ALTERNATIVE                                           NOTES

-------
                            EXHIBIT B-2  (continued)
PRIMARY BALAHCIUG CRITERIOH:   Cost
      ALTERNATIVE                                         NOTES

-------
                              EXHIBIT B-2  (continued)
MODIFYIHG CRITERION:   State/Support Agency Acceptance
      QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS;
      o      Does the State or Support Agency concur on the selected remedy?
       ALTERHATIVE                                            NOTES

-------
                            EXHIBIT B-2 (continued)
MODIFYIHG CRITERION:  State/Support Agency Acceptance






      Alternative                                      Notes

-------
                             EXHIBIT  B-2 (continued)
MODIFYING CRITERIOH :  Community Acceptance
      QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS:
      o      Does the community accept the alternative?
      ALTERNATIVE                                          NOTES

-------
                             EXHIBIT B-2 (continued)
MODIFYIHG CRITERION:  Community Acceptance
      ALTERNATIVE                                         NOTES

-------
        SUMMARY OF EVALUATION WORKSHEET
CRITERION
ALTERNATIVES
The exhibit below summarizes the relative ranking of the alternatives in terms of the primary balancing criteria. For
purposes of clear, consistent presentation, the alternatives can be discussed in order of most to least in the
"Comparative Analysis" section of the ROD.
1) Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence 1)
Most |
A«5' -Alt3 !
- Alt 1 |
Alt 4 - i
- Alt 2 |
Least i
:
-^ ,, , 
2) Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume 2)
Through Treatment
Most ^
Alt 5 " - Alt 3 |
- Alt 2 i
Alt 1 - :
Ait 4 - ;|
Least 1
- '&,' ^ *" ^ *-»V« c^'/^iS ' -.'-",•>.>"<.' x" '- -i ' A f'i&s'^''^'
3) Implementability 3)
*
Most 1
Alt 3- 1
Alt 1 - |
Alt 5- I
Art 4 - 1
Alt 2 - 1
Least *
- '<. " \ ,,'<- " '"« '' i " '"- ' , ^ ' .«' "% . "> x &y- -' --*
4) Short-term Effectiveness 4)
Most |
Art 1 - 3
- Alt 4 |
- Alt 5 |
Alt 3 - |
Alt 2 - |
Least %^
- *&/ -; "*>f ^fy- 'st, ^*y - **/& &f? »/ - **>£ *•- ""- - ^ "t»"' ^^ , ^ ^ , * c ^%^^*.< - ;
5) Cost 5)
, , • , „ *>v
Most 3
-Alt5 |
- Alt 1 |
- Alt 3 1
- Alt 2 1
- Alt 4 |
Least |
i'~ ^ -V , i , - ^2^*^.^1», v^^^, i
S94106-1

-------
                                  OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                APPENDIX C
•    Sample Description of an Alternative

•    Sample Summary of Site Risks
     Table

-------
                                                             OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                   APPENDIX  C
                                  EXHIBIT C-l
              SAMPLE DESCRIPTION OF A REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
     The sample below describes a remedial alternative with approximately 11,000 cubic yards
of contaminated soil in a former lagoon/tank farm area.  Approximately 3,500 cubic yards of
the soil are contaminated with heavy metals, with average concentrations of cadmium at 17
parts per million (ppm), chromium at 12 ppm, and lead at  30 ppm.  Hot spots of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) also are present in approximately 7,500 cubic yards of the soils,
including TCE at 140 ppm and benzene at 40 ppm.  These levels in the soil pose a cumulative
carcinogenic risk level of 10"  .

Alternative 3:  Excavation. Thermal Destruction of Contaminated Soils. Stabilization, and On-
site Disposal of Residuals

     Major Components of the Remedial Alternative. The  major features of this alternative
include excavation of 7,500 cubic yards of VOC-contaminated soil from hot spots in the
lagoon/tank farm area, on-site thermal destruction of the VOC-contaminated soil, stabilization
of the  treated residuals with metal-contaminated soils remaining in the lagoon/tank farm area,
and landfill closure of the lagoon/tank farm area.

     The amount of VOC-contaminated soil to be excavated in the lagoon/tank farm area was
determined using fate and transport modeling to estimate the potential ground-water
contamination that could result from the migration of soil contaminants remaining in  the
lagoon/tank farm area.  The VOC-contaminated soils would be treated on-site in accordance
with RCRA Subpart O standards using a  thermal destruction unit. The specific type  of
process (e.g., rotary kiln) would be determined in the Remedial Design phase through
engineering design and analysis and the competitive bidding process.  The  unit would be
mobilized, operated, and closed according to the requirements of RCRA Subpart O, 40 CFR
264.340.  These requirements, though not applicable  because the hazardous substances to be
treated are neither RCRA-listed nor RCRA-characteristic waste, have been determined to be
relevant and appropriate. Specific operating practices necessary to meet the performance
objectives, including a 99.99 percent destruction and  removal efficiency (DRE) of stack
emissions as required by Subpart O of RCRA, would be determined through a trial burn at
the site after the installation of the thermal destruction unit.  Although this alternative involves
the excavation and placement of hazardous substances, those substances are not RCRA-
regulated waste; therefore, the RCRA land disposal restrictions are not applicable
requirements.  EPA is undertaking a Land Disposal  Restriction (LDR) rulemaking that will
specifically apply to soil and debris.  Until that rulemaking  is completed, the CERCLA
program will not consider LDRs to be relevant and appropriate to soil and debris that do not
contain RCRA-regulated wastes.

-------
                                                             OSWER  Directive 9355.3-02
                                          C-2
                          EXHIBIT C-1  (Continued)
     Management of Residuals.  The thermal destruction unit would be equipped with an
appropriate dry emission control system, which would eliminate the need for wastewater
treatment.  Any water from emission control and from decontamination procedures would be
treated in an on-site ground-water treatment system, which is already operating as part of a
previous operable unit at the site.

     The  residual ash and treated soils would be stabilized with the heavy metal contaminated
soils in the lagoon/tank farm area.  This 10-acre area would be capped and closed as  a
landfill in  accordance with the requirements specified in 40 CFR 264.310 for landfill closure,
which require a cap to have a permeability less than or equal to the permeability of the
natural underlying soil. Because the facility ceased operation in August 1978 prior  to the
effective date of RCRA (November  19, 1980) and the remedy does not involve the disposal of
RCRA-regulated waste, the RCRA Subtitle  C closure standards are not applicable to the tank
farm. However, the standards have  been determined to be relevant and appropriate to the
type of wastes being managed and the circumstances of the release. Closure of the area also
will comply with the State's more stringent RCRA requirements.

     The  cap would be designed and constructed to promote drainage, minimize erosion of
the cover, and provide long-term minimization of migration of liquids through the underlying
contaminated soils.  Consistent with  the requirements of RCRA 264.117, long-term  operation
and maintenance (O&M)  would be conducted to monitor the ground water around the landfill
and to ensure the integrity of the cap.   The RCRA minimum technology requirements are not
ARARs because the stabilized soils would not be placed in a new RCRA unit, a lateral
expansion  of  an existing unit, or a replacement unit.

       At the completion of the remedial action, health risks posed by direct contact with soils
would be no  greater than 1 x 10"  .  Meeting this target cleanup level for TCE-contaminated
soil would protect against exposure by direct contact and ingestion, as  determined by the risk
assessment.  The estimated capital cost of this component of the remedy is $14,666,000, with
annual O&M costs estimated to be $14,400.  The estimated time to implement this remedy
and to meet the cleanup goals is approximately 34 months.

-------
                                              APPENDIX C
                                              EXHIBIT C-2
                                           SAMPLE SUWARY OF SITE RISKS
                                           BASED ON CURRENT LAND-USE*
Chronic Daily Cancer Noncancer
Total Exposure Point
Nearby Residential
Population
Distant Public
Water Supply
Users
Chemical Intake (GDI) CPF Risk RfD Hazard Index
Exposure Pathway of Concern (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)"1 (CDI x CPF) (mg/kg-day) (CDI/ RfD)
(1) Ground-water Benzene 0.00025 0.052 1 x 10~^ 0.002
Ingestion Lead 0.00015 - - 0.00043
(wells) Chlordane 0.00008 1.61 1 x 10~4
PATHWAY TOTAL 1 x 10" 4
(2) Home Grown MEK 0.0009 - - 0.008
Produce Lead 0.000035 - - 0.00043
Ingestion Chlordane 0.00015 1.61 2 x 10~A
PATHWAY TOTAL 2 x 10~4
TOTAL FOR NEARBY RESIDENTIAL POPULATION 3 x 10~4
(1) Ground-water [Table should continue for each total exposure point, pathway of exposure,
Ingestion chemical of concern.]
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.08
0.2
0.6
and
*  Values for illustration only.

CPF = Cancer Potency Factor.
RfD = Reference Dose.
MEK = Methyl ethyl ketone.

-------
                                                  OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                               APPENDIX D

        Sample  Selected Remedy  and  Statutory Determinations
                         Discussion for  the ROD
THE  SELECTED REMEDY

     Based upon  consideration of the requirements  of CERCLA, the detailed
analysis of the  alternatives, and public comments,  both  EPA and the State have
determined that  Alternative 9:  Excavation, Volatilization, Stabilization, and
On-site Disposal  is the most appropriate remedy for the  EIO Industrial Site in
Nameless, TN.

     Seventy-five hundred cubic yards of volatile  organic  compound (VOC)-
contaminated soil hotspots will be excavated from  the lagoon/tank farm area.
The VOCs in the  soil will be treated using a volatilization technology.
Approximately 99 percent of the VOCs will be removed by  this treatment
process.  The treated  soils will be returned to the lagoon/tank farm area and
stabilized with  the estimated 3,500 cubic yards of metal-contaminated soils
not excavated from that area.  The lagoon/tank farm area will be regraded,
revegetated, and capped in accordance with Federal  and State requirements for
RCRA landfill  closure.

Remediation Goals

     The purpose of this response action is to control risks posed by direct
contact with soils and to minimize migration of VOCs to  ground water.
Existing conditions at the site have been determined to  pose an excess
lifetime cancer  risk of 10~3  from  direct  contact with  contaminated soils  and
ingestions of contaminated ground water.  This risk relates to the VOC
concentrations (primarily TCE) in soil which average 140 mg/kg.  This remedy
will address all  soils contaminated with VOCs in excess  of 5 ppm.  VOC
contamination remaining in soils at 14 mg/kg corresponds to an excess lifetime
cancer risk of 10"6 through  each route  of exposure.   Since no Federal  or  State
ARARs exist for  soil,  the action level for the VOCs in soil was determined
through a site-specific analysis.  This analysis used fate and transport
modeling to determine  levels to which VOCs in soils should be reduced in order
to ensure no leaching  of contaminants to ground water above MCL levels

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     D-2

(5 mg/kg).   Levels  protective of ground water will also ensure protection from
exposure through  direct contact to soils above a 10"5  excess cancer risk.

     The excavated  VOC-contaminated soils will be treated using low-
temperature volatilization that will remove 99 percent of the VOCs from the
soil.  The granular activated carbon canisters used to capture the VOCs will
be shipped offsite  to  be  regenerated.

     The treated  soil, which will still  contain less mobile organic compounds
and metals, will  be combined with the 3,500 cubic yards of metal-contaminated
soils not excavated.   This material will be stabilized and then covered with
an impermeable cap.

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

     Under its legal  authorities, EPA's  primary responsibility at Superfund
sites is to undertake  remedial  actions that achieve adequate protection of
human health and  the environment.   In addition, section 121 of CERCLA
establishes several other statutory requirements and preferences.  These
specify that when complete, the selected remedial action for this site must
comply with applicable or relevant  and appropriate environmental standards
established under Federal and State environmental laws unless a statutory
waiver is justified.   The selected  remedy  also must be cost-effective and
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies  to  the maximum  extent practicable.  Finally, the statute
includes a preference  for remedies  that  employ treatment that permanently and
significantly reduce the  volume,  toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as
their principal element.   The following  sections discuss how the selected
remedy meets these statutory requirements.

Protection of Human  Health and the  Environment

     The selected remedy  protects human  health and the environment through
volatilization of VOC-contaminated  soil, stabilization of the treated  soil
with the metal-contaminated soil, and capping the  stabilized soils in  the
lagoon/tank farm area.  The area  will  be capped  and  closed  in accordance with
RCRA landfill closure requirements  to reduce  the  likelihood of  contaminant
migration.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                    D-3

     Volatilization  of the VOC-contaminated soil  also will  eliminate the
threat of exposure to the most mobile contaminants from direct  contact with or
ingestion of contaminated soil.  The current risks associated with these
exposure pathways  is 3.5 x 10"3.   By  excavating the hotspots of contaminated
soil  and treating  them in a volatilization unit,  the cancer risks from
exposure will  be reduced to less than 2.7 x 1CT6.  This level is within  the
range of acceptable  exposure levels of between 10'* and 10"7.  By stabilizing
the residuals  and  the unexcavated metal-contaminated soils  and  closing the
lagoon/tank farm area as a landfill, the risks of exposure  through direct
contact will  be further reduced.  There are no short-term threats associated
with the selected  remedy that cannot be readily controlled.  In addition, no
adverse cross-media  impacts are expected from the remedy.

Compliance With  Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements

     The selected  remedy of excavation, on-site thermal treatment, and
stabilization will comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate
chemical-, action-,  and location-specific requirements (ARARs). The ARARs  are
presented below.

Action-specific ARARs:

     RCRA requirements for landfill closure in 40 CFR 264.111 Subpart G, which
     specify a cap with a permeability less than or equal to the permeability
     of any bottom liner or natural sub-soils present at the site.

     40 CFR 264.117(a)(l) Subpart G Post-Closure and Monitoring requirements
     for thirty years or another period determined by the Regional
     Administrator.

     Rules 4-2, 4-3, and 5-3 of the State Regulations for Control and
     Abatement of  Air Pollution that affect actions that generate air
     emissions and odors.

Chemical-specific ARARs:

     None

-------
                                                   OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                    D-4


Location-specific ARARs:

     None

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness

     The selected remedy is cost-effective because it has been determined to
provide overall effectiveness proportional to its costs, the net present worth
value being $5,050,154.  The estimated costs of the selected remedy  are within
an order of magnitude of (less than five times) the costs associated with on-
site capping of the contaminated  soils, and yet the selected remedy  assures a
much higher degree of certainty that the remedy will be effective in the long-
term due to the significant reduction  of the toxicity and mobility of the
wastes achieved through volatilization of  the VOCs and stabilization of the
metal-contaminated soils prior to  capping.  While the selected remedy
effectively reduces the hazards posed  by all of the contaminants at  the site,
its costs  are only 12 percent of the alternatives involving incineration.

Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies (or Resource Recovery  Technologies)  to the Maximum
Extent Practicable

     EPA and the State of Tennessee have determined that the selected remedy
represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment
technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for the final source
control operable unit at the EIO site. Of those alternatives that are
protective of human health and the environment and comply with ARARs, EPA and
the State  have determined that this selected remedy provides the best balance
of tradeoffs in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction  in
toxicity,  mobility, or volume achieved through treatment, short-term
effectiveness, implementability,  cost, also considering the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal  element and considering State and
community  acceptance.

-------
                                                    OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                     D-5

     While the selected  remedy does  not  offer  as  high  a  degree  of long-term
effectiveness  and  permanence as the  incineration  alternatives,  it will
significantly  reduce  the inherent  hazards  posed by  the contaminated  soils
through volatilization of the VOCs and  stabilization of  the metals such  that
the residual material that remains to be managed  can be  contained with a high
degree of certainty over the long  term.  Since the  remaining material will  be
bound up, the  impact  on  human health and the environment would  be minimal  if
the containment system were to fail. Additionally, the  incineration options,
while resulting in fewer residuals requiring long-term management, would
nonetheless involving capping of the metal-contaminated  ash.

     The selected  remedy treats the  principal  threats  posed by  the soils,
achieving significant VOCs reductions (99  percent)  only  slightly less
effective than incineration.  The  selected remedy is more effective  than all
other treatment options  in the short-term,  requiring only 12-15 months to
implement as compared to the six years  potentially  required for incineration.
The implementability  of  the selected remedy is comparable to the nontreatment
alternatives and significantly better than the incineration options. The
selected remedy is also  the least  costly treatment  option and also less
expensive than off-site  disposal.

     The selection of treatment of the  contaminated soil is consistent with
program expectations  that indicate that  highly toxic and mobile waste are  a
priority for treatment  and often necessary to  ensure the long-term
effectiveness  of a remedy.  Since  all three treatment  options are reasonably
comparable with respect  to long-term effectiveness  and the toxicity and
mobility reductions achieved, the  major tradeoffs that provide  the basis for
this selection decision  are short-term  effectiveness,  implementability,  and
cost.  The selected remedy can be  implemented  more  quickly, with less
difficulty and at  less  cost than the other treatment alternatives and is
therefore determined  to  be the most  appropriate  solution for the contaminated
soils at the EIO site.

Preference for Treatment as a Principal  Element

     By treating the  VOC-contaminated soils in a  thermal destruction unit  and
stabilizing the residuals with the metal-contaminated  soils, the selected
remedy addresses one  of  the principal threats  posed by the site through  the
use of treatment technologies.  Therefore,  the statutory preference for
remedies that  employ  treatment as  a principal  element  is satisfied.

-------
                                                      OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                      8-4

document this response in the administrative  record.   The  types  of information
typically received from the public and  support  agency are  described in the
next section, along with the lead agency's  obligation to respond to this
information.

8.4  STANDARDS  FOR CONSIDERATION  OF INFORMATION
     SUBMITTED BY THE  PUBLIC, PRPs, OR  SUPPORT AGENCY

     EPA recommends a four-part standard  for  determining which comments
submitted by the public or support agency after the  ROD is signed warrant
formal consideration.1  Formal consideration, as  specified in  the proposed
revisions to the NCR and depicted in  Figure 8-1,  requires  a written response
to the comments and the inclusion of  the  comments in the administrative record
file.  Comments received from the support agency or  public should be
considered by the lead agency when each of  the  following criteria are met:

     •    The comments contain significant  information;

     •    The information is not contained  elsewhere in the
          administrative record file;

     •    The information could not have  been submitted during the
          public comment period; and

     •    The information substantially supports the need  to
          significantly alter the response  action.

     In most cases (particularly in light of  the fourth criterion),
information that meets this four-part standard  warrants a  significant change
to the remedy.  Depending upon how significant  the change  is,  the lead agency
should prepare either an ESD or a ROD amendment following  the  guidance in
Section 8.5 below.  The ESD or amended  ROD  represent the lead  agency's formal
written response to the information submitted.
    1 The basis for establishing the "consideration" standard relates back to the public's and support
agency's statutory opportunity to participate in the remedy selection process prior to adoption of the
ROD.  Once the lead agency has selected the response action, the obligation to respond to comments on
the remedy is limited. Additionally, it is in the best interest of the public for the lead agency to proceed
with the implementation of the selected remedy in an expeditious manner. The lead agency's ability to
accomplish this would be compromised if it were under the obh'gation to formally respond to every
comment submitted after the ROD is signed.

-------
                               FIGURE 8-1
           Process to Address Post-ROD Significant Changes
                                 INFORMATION RECEIVED
                                   FROM PUBLIC OR
                                   SUPPORT AGENCY
        YES
                        DOES
                     INFORMATION
                       LEAD TO
                     SIGNIFICANT
                      CHANGES?
                                      DOES IT
                                  WARRANT FORMAL
                                  "CONSIDERATION"
                                      BY LEAD
   LEAD AGENCY MUST
     ISSUE EITHER:
 * EXPLANATION OF
    SIGNIFICANT
    DIFFERENCES; OR
 * NEW PROPOSED PLAN
    AND ROD AMENDMENT I
                                                       NO j
           LEAD AGENCY PLACES
             INFORMATION IN
              POST-DECISION
              DOCUMENT FILE
      NO  j
LEAD AGENCY MUST:
FORMALLY RESPOND;
 AND

PLACE DOCUMENT IN
 ADMINISTRATIVE
 RECORD FILE
** NOTE:
     * DO THE COMMENTS CONTAIN SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION?
     * IS THE INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD?
     * COULD THE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD?
     * DOES THE INFORMATION SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORT THE NEED TO ALTER
       THE RESPONSE ACTION?

-------
                                 8-19
                             FIGURE 8-4
Process That Results in the Issuance of an Amended ROD:
                     General Procedures
  1
  a
  s
  I
                          INFORMATION RECEIVED OR

                         GENERATED BY LEAD AGENCY
  o
      LEAD AGENCY DETERMINES:
* INFORMATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED; AND
• A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE
   TO THE REMEDY RESULTS
                       LEAD AGENCY:
                      PREPARES AMENDED PROPOSED PLAN; AND

                     GIVES SUPPORT AGENCY
                      OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT
   a
   o
                       LEAD AGENCY:
                      PUBLISHES NEWSPAPER NOTICE; AND
                      PLACES PROPOSED PLAN AND RELEVANT
                       INFORMATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE
                       RECORD FILE
                       LEAD AGENCY:

                    •  GIVES PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT; AND
                    •  PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC MEETING
                                  1
                                  J
                       LEAD AGENCY:
                    • RESPONDS TO COMMENTS;
                    • PREPARES ROD AMENDMENT; AND
                    * REGIONAL OR ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
                       SIGNS ROD AMENDMENT
                                 J

                       LEAD AGENCY:
                    • PUBLISHES NEWSPAPER NOTICE; AND
                    * PLACES ROD AMENDMENT INTO
                   	ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE

-------
                                                 8-20
                                             FIGURE 8-5
             Process That Results in the Issuance of an Amended ROD:
                   Changes Resulting from Enforcement Activities
                         CONSENT DECREE:
                         * l» SIGNED; AND
                         • INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
                            THAT WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY
                            CHANGE THE REMEDY.
                              CONSENT DECREE FILED WITH
                                 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
                                       i
                                J
                         LEAD AGENCY:
                         * PREPARES AMENDED PROPOSED PLAN; AND
                         * GIVES SUPPORT AGENCY OPPORTUNITY
                            TO COMMENT.
 Q
 CC
 cc
 o
 UL
 (/>
 o
 <
 o
 o
 1U
 z
LEAD AGENCY:
* PUBLISHES NEWSPAPER NOTICE;
* PLACES PROPOSED PLAN AND RELEVANT
   INFORMATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD |
   FILE; AND
• MAKES CONSENT DECREE AVAILABLE.
LEAD AGENCY:
* GIVES PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO
   COMMENT ON PROPOSED PLAN; AND
* PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY FOR
   PUBLIC MEETING,
DOJ PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT
ON CONSENT DECREE.
i
LEAD AGENCY:
* RESPONDS TO COMMENTS;
» PREPARES ROD AMENDMENT; AND
* REGIONAL OR ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
   SIGNS ROD AMENDMENT
DOJ RESPONDS TO COMMENTS ON
CONSENT DECREE.
1
                                                                   LEAD AGENCY:
                                                                   * PUBLISHES NEWSPAPER NOTICE; AND
                                                                   * PLACES ROD AMENDMENT IN
                                                                      ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE.
                J
                                                                   LEAD AGENCY:
                                                                  * RESPONDS TO COMMENTS; AND
                                                                  * MOTIONS TO ENTER INTO CONSENT DECREE.
i
                J
                                                                         CONSENT DECREE IS ENTERED
                                                                           WITH U.S. DISTRICT COURT.
                                                                        J

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     8-7

is to lead to decisions during design and construction that optimize the cost-
effectiveness and  performance of the remedy.  There will be instances,
therefore, in which  these  value engineering decisions result in significant
changes to the remedy.

     Unlike the public, PRPs, and the support agency, who are subject to the
consideration standard discussed in Section 8.3, the lead agency has the
discretion to make decisions regarding the post-ROD information it generates.
As previously mentioned, the intent of the consideration standard is to
determine what public or support agency  information the lead agency should
respond to and document in the administrative record file.  The intent of this
standard does not  apply to information the lead agency generates itself, since
there is no need to  respond to that information.

     The lead agency's initial analysis  should focus on whether the new
information generated during RD/RA prompts the lead agency to initiate a
change to the remedy.  The change may be either a non-significant or a
significant change to the  ROD.  If the lead agency determines a significant
change is warranted, then  the lead agency should consult with the support
agency to determine  the appropriate procedures for documenting that
significant change (e.g.,  an ESD or ROD  amendment).  The procedures for
evaluating the magnitude of the changes  made to a remedy and, therefore, the
documentation procedures that should be  followed, are presented in the next
section.

8.6  CATEGORIES  OF  POST-ROD CHANGES

     Once the lead agency  determines that a change to the remedy is warranted
based on the information submitted by the public, PRPs, the support agency, or
simply generated through the RD/RA process, the change should be evaluated to
determine whether  it is one of the following:

     •    A non-significant or minor change;

     •    A significant change to a component of the remedy; or

     •    A fundamental change to the overall remedy.

-------
                                                  OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                              APPENDIX E

                           HELPFUL HINTS:
   HOW TO  PREPARE AND SUBMIT DECISION DOCUMENTS
                         TO  HEADQUARTERS
     After  a decision document --  Proposed Plan,  Record  of Decision (ROD),
Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), or  ROD Amendment -- is issued,  a
copy should be sent as soon as possible to the following office in
Headquarters:

         Chief, Remedial Planning and Response Branch
         Hazardous Site Control Division (OS-220)
         Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
         U.S. EPA
         401 M Street, S.W.
         Washington, D.C.  20460

The following procedures should be followed in preparing and submitting
decision documents to Headquarters.

1.   FORMAT

     •    One clear, LEGIBLE  copy  of the document (Proposed Plan, ROD, ESD,  or
         ROD Amendment) should be provided to Headquarters.  In addition,  a
         computer file of the ROD and/or ROD Amendment  should be provided  on
         a diskette.

     •    All documents should follow the format  described in this guidance.

     •    All RODs and ROD Amendments should be single spaced.

     •    All documents should come to Headquarters completely assembled and
         legible.  Do not send sections separately.

         For RODs and ROD Amendments, THE SIGNED AND DATED SIGNATURE PAGE
         SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCLUDED.

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                      E-2

2.   ATTACHMENTS. CHARTS. TABLES, MAPS, AND EXHIBITS

     •    All columns and text should be displayed completely.

     •    Computer printouts should be LEGIBLE, especially cost sheets.  Dot
          matrix printouts do not copy well.

     •    Try to avoid including reduced documents (tables and texts), because
          these documents tend to be illegible.

3.   COST TABLES

     •    All columns and figures in the cost tables should be LEGIBLE,
          especially those that apply to the selected alternative.

     •    Costs should be broken down into capital, operation and maintenance
          and present-worth costs.

4.   ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL INSERTS

     •    Enforcement confidential pages should be labeled clearly and
          CONSPICUOUSLY.

-------
                                                OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                            APPENDIX F

                   SOURCES OF INFORMATION
    The following is a list of additional guidance documents that may be
useful in preparing Superfund decision documents or are pertinent to the
remedial decisionmaking process.

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     F-2
10.   State Participation in the Suoerfund Program Manual.  Volume I.  U.S.  EPA,
     OSWER Directive 9375.1-04, March 1986.

11.   State Participation in the Suoerfund Program. Volume  II.  U.S.  EPA, OSWER
     Directive 9375.1-05,  March 1986.

12.   Interim Guidance on State Participation in Pre-Remedial  and Remedial
     Response. U.S.  EPA, OSWER Directive 9375.1-09, July 1987,

-------
                                                    OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                               APPENDIX  F

                     SOURCES  OF INFORMATION
     The following is a list  of  additional guidance documents that may be
useful in preparing Superfund decision documents or are pertinent to the
remedial decisionmaking process.
1.   Comprehensive Environmental  Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
     1980 (CERCLA) (P.L.  96-510)  as  amended by the Superfund Amendments and
     Reauthorization Act  of 1986  (SARA)  (P.L. 99-499).

2.   National  Oil  and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
     Proposed  Rule (40 FR 51394), December 21, 1988.

3.   Guidance  for Conducting Remedial  Investigations and Feasibility Studies
     under CERCLA (Interim Final), U.S.  EPA, OSWER Directive 9355.3-01,
     October 1988.

4.   CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Draft, U.S. EPA, OSWER
     Directive 9234.1-01, August  1988.

5.   Community Relations  in Suoerfund:   A Handbook. U.S. EPA, OSWER Directive
     9230.0-3B, June 1988.

6.   Suoerfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA) Guidance. U.S. EPA,
     OSWER Directive 9355.0-4A, June 1986.

7.   Guidance  on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Groundwater at Suoerfund
     Sites (Interim Final), U.S.  EPA,  OSWER Directive 9283.1-2, December 1988.

8.   Guidance  on Administrative Records  for Selection of CERCLA Response
     Actions (Interim), U.S. EPA, OSWER  Directive 9833.3, March 1989.

9.   Superfund State-Lead Remedial Pro.lect Management Handbook. U.S. EPA,
     OSWER Directive 9355.2-01, December 1986.

-------
                                                     OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                     F-2


10.   State Participation In the Superfund Program Manual, Volume I. U.S. EPA,
     OSWER Directive 9375.1-04, March 1986.

11.   State Participation in the Simerfund Program. Volume II. U.S. EPA, OSWER
     Directive 9375.1-05, March 1986.

12.   Interim Guidance on State Participation in Pre-Remedial and Remedial
     Response. U.S. EPA, OSWER Directive 9375.1-09, July 1987.

13.   Superfund Federal-Lead Remedial  Pro.lect Management Handbook. U.S. EPA,
     OSWER Directive 9355.1-1, December 1986.

14.   Guidance on Developing a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement. U.S. EPA,
     OSWER Directive 9375.0-01, Fall  1988.

-------