United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9200.3-23FS
EPA 540/F-96/018
PB96-963245
September 1996
The Role of Cost in the
Superfund Remedy Selection Process
Office of Emergency and Remedial Responsea
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
This fact sheet describes the role of cost in the selection of remedial actions under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly referred to as Superfund). Cost is
a central factor in all Superfund remedy selection decisions. The objective of this fact sheet is to clarify the current
role of cost as established in existing law, regulation, and policy. This fact sheet does not elevate or establish a new
role for cost in the Superfund program, but rather describes the current role of cost as established by the Superfund
statute (CERCLA) and the Superfund regulations (the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
(NCP)), and as expanded upon in EPA guidance.
Through the distribution of this fact sheet, EPA hopes to ensure that all stakeholders involved in the
Superfund process fully understand the important role that cost plays in remedy selection under existing law and policy,
and to summarize recent initiatives aimed at enhancing the cost-effectiveness of remedial actions. These initiatives
include the National Remedy Review Board, Remedy Selection Rules of Thumb, and Updating Remedy Decisions.
O STATUTORY AND REGULATORY
CONTEXT FOR THE CONSIDERATION
OF COST
Understanding the role of cost in the
Superfund remedy selection process requires an
understanding of the statutory and regulatory
provisions that guide this process. CERCLA
established five principal requirements for the
selection of remedies. Remedies must:
1) Protect human health and the environment;
2) Comply with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) unless a
waiver is justified;
3) Be cost-effective;
4) Utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent
practicable; and
5) Satisfy a preference for treatment as a
principal element, or provide an explanation
in the Record of Decision (ROD) why the
preference was not met.
The NCP sets forth the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process for
gathering the information necessary to select a remedy
that is appropriate for the site and fulfills these
statutory mandates. The RI includes sampling and
analysis to characterize the nature and extent of site
contamination, performance of a baseline risk
assessment to assess the current and potential future
risks to human health and the environment posed by
that contamination, and the conduct of treatability
studies to evaluate the potential costs and effectiveness
of treatment or recovery technologies in reducing the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of specific site waste.
The FS includes the development and screening of
alternative remedial actions, and the detailed
evaluation and comparison of the final candidate
cleanup options. Typically, a range of options is
developed during the FS concurrently with the RI site
characterization, with the results of each influencing
the other in an iterative fashion.
The NCP also lays out a two-step selection
process, in which a preferred remedial action is
presented to the public for comment in a Proposed
Plan, which summarizes preliminary conclusions as to
why that option appears most favorable based on the
information available and considered during the FS.
Following the receipt and evaluation of public
comments on the Proposed Plan, which may include
new information (e.g., a fuller view of community
-------
input on the options, new information on technology
performance), the decision maker makes a final
decision and documents the selected remedy in a ROD.
For a general discussion of this process, see EPA's
"Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations
and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA Interim
Final," OSWER Directive 9355.3-01, October 1988,
and "Guide to Selecting Superfund Remedial Actions, "
OSWER Directive 9355.0-27FS, hereinafter referred to
as the RI/FS Guidance and the Remedy Selection
Guidance, respectively.
In addition to the items discussed in more detail
below, it is important to keep in mind that remedial
action costs are influenced, in general, by the quality
of the conceptual site model (CSM), which is a three-
dimensional "picture" of site conditions that illustrates
contaminant distributions, release mechanisms,
exposure pathways, migration routes, and potential
receptors. The CSM documents current site conditions
and is supported by maps, cross sections, and site
diagrams that illustrate what is known about human
and environmental exposure through contaminant
release and migration to potential receptors. It is
initially developed during the scoping phase of the
RI/FS, and modified as additional information
becomes available. Careful evaluation of site risks,
incorporating reasonable assumptions about exposure
scenarios and expected future land use, and the
definition of principal threat waste generally
warranting treatment, help to prevent implementation
of costly remediation programs that may not be
warranted.
In addition, EPA expects that the appropriately
consistent application of existing national policy and
guidance will result in the selection of cost-effective
remedies. Guidance that promotes cost-effective
decision making includes the Presumptive Remedy
series, Soil Screening Guidance, and Land Use
Guidance. For more information, see OSWER
Directives 9355.0 - 47FS, 9355.4-14FSA, and 9355.7-
04, respectively.
© CONSIDERATION OF COST
DURING THE DEVELOPMENT AND
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
During the first step of the FS, a range of remedial
alternatives is developed and then screened in order to
identify those alternatives that should be considered in
more detail. Cost estimates developed for each option
comprise the short- and long-term cost of remediation,
including capital costs (e.g., the costs to put remedial
technology in place, including those for equipment,
labor, materials, and services), and the annual costs of
operations and maintenance (O & M) for the entire
period during which such activities will be required.
Costs should be discounted to a common base year to
evaluate expenditures over time. A discount rate of
seven percent before taxes and after inflation should be
used to account for the time value of money (see
"Revisions to OMB Circular A-94 on Guidelines and
Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis, " OSWER
Directive 9355.3-20, June 25, 1993). A more
complete description of remedial action cost estimating
can be found in the RI/FS Guidance.
Development of Alternatives
In elaborating the RI/FS process, the NCP
instructs decision makers on how to implement both
the mandate to utilize permanent solutions and
treatment to the maximum extent practicable and the
requirement to select remedial actions that are cost-
effective. Specifically, the NCP establishes the
program goal and expectations found at 40 CFR
300.430(a)(l)(iii) (See Exhibit 1). These expectations
identify the appropriate methods of protection which
generally should guide the development of cleanup
options for common types of site situations, while
allowing flexibility to modify these expectations to take
into account truly unique site circumstances.
The NCP states that the overall goal of the remedy
selection process is "to select remedies that are
protective of human health and the environment, that
maintain protection over time, and that minimize
untreated waste" (40 CFR 300.430(a) (1) ft)). This goal
reflects CERCLA's emphasis on treatment as the
preferred method of protection. However, recognizing
that CERCLA tempers its emphasis on permanent
solutions and treatment through the addition of the
qualifier "to the maximum extent practicable," and
also contains the co-equal mandate for remedies to be
cost-effective, the NCP goes on to state that, in
general, "EPA expects to use treatment to address the
principal threats posed by a site, wherever practicable.
Principal threats for which treatment is most likely to
be appropriate include liquids, areas contaminated
with high concentrations of toxic compounds, and
highly mobile materials" (40 CFR
300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A)) (see "A Guide to Principal
Threat and Low Level Threat Wastes, " Publication
9380.3-06FS, November 1991).
At the same time, "EPA expects to use
engineering controls, such as containment, for waste
that poses a relatively low long-term threat or where
treatment is impracticable," and to combine these
-------
Exhibit 1
PROGRAM EXPECTATIONS
Protection of human health and the
environment can be achieved through a variety of
methods: treatment to destroy or reduce the inherent
hazards posed by hazardous substances, engineering
controls (such as containment), and institutional
controls to prevent exposure to hazardous substances.
The NCP sets out the types of remedies that are
expected to result from the remedy selection process
(Sec. 300.430(a)(l)(iii)).
>• Treat principal threats, wherever practicable.
Principal threats for which treatment is most
likely to be appropriate are characterized as:
• Areas contaminated with high
concentrations of toxic compounds;
• Liquids and other highly mobile materials;
• Contaminated media (e.g., contaminated
ground water, sediment, soil) that pose
significant risk of exposure; or
• Media containing contaminant
concentrations several orders of magnitude
above health-based levels.
>• Appropriate remedies often will combine
treatment and containment. For a specific site,
treatment of the principal threats(s) may be
combined with containment of treatment
residuals and low-level contaminated material.
>• Containment will be considered for wastes th at
pose a relatively low long-term threat or where
treatment is impracticable. These include
wastes that are near health-based levels, are
substantially immobile, or otherwise can be
reliably contained over long periods of time; wastes
that are technically difficult to treat or for which
treatment is infeasible or unavailable; situations
where treatment-based remedies would result in
greater overall risk to human health or the
environment during implementation due to potential
explosiveness, volatilization, or other materials
handling problems; or sites that are extraordinarily
large where the scope of the problem may make
treatment of all wastes impracticable, such as
municipal landfills or mining sites.
>• Institutional controls are most useful as a
supplement to engineering controls for short-
and long-term management. Institutional
controls (e.g., deed restrictions, prohibitions of
well construction) are important in controlling
exposure during remedial action implementation
and as a supplement 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.
>• Innovative technologies should be considered
if they offer the potential for comparable or
superior treatment performance, fewer/lesser
adverse impacts, or lower costs for similar
levels of performance than demonstrated
technologies.
>• Ground waters will be returned to their
beneficial uses wherever practicable within a
timeframe that is reasonable given the
particular circumstances of the site.
methods and use of institutional controls, as
appropriate, at sites with both types of contaminated
materials (40 CFR 300.430(a)(l)(iii)(B) and (C)).
In addition, "EPA expects to use institutional
controls such as water use and deed restrictions to
supplement engineering controls as appropriate for
short- and long-term management to prevent or limit
exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants. ... The use of institutional controls shall
not substitute for active response measures (e.g.,
treatment and/or containment of source material,
restoration of ground waters to their beneficial uses) as
the sole remedy unless such active measures are
determined not to be practicable, based on the
balancing of trade-offs among alternatives that is
conducted during the selection of remedy" (40 CFR
300.430(a)(l)(iii)(D)).
The NCP also contains the following expectation
for Ground Water Response Actions: "EPA expects to
return usable ground waters to their beneficial uses
-------
whenever practicable, within a time frame that is
reasonable given the particular circumstances of the
site. When restoration of ground water to beneficial
uses is not practicable, EPA expects to prevent further
migration of the plume, prevent exposure to the
contaminated ground water, and evaluate further risk
reduction" (40 CFR 300.430(a)(l)(iii)(F)). This
recognizes that there may be particular site
circumstances (e.g., DNAPL in fractured bedrock)
where complete restoration will not be practicable.
These Superfund program expectations guide the
development of remedial alternatives during the FS.
Although cost is not a specific element of the
Superfund program expectations, the recognition that
different waste management approaches (i.e.,
combinations of treatment, containment, and
institutional controls) may be appropriate at different
sites depending on the types of threats posed, reflects
a "built-in" sensitivity to the issue of cost in the
Superfund remedy selection process (e.g., large sums
of money should not be spent treating low-level threat
wastes). These expectations reflect EPA's belief that
certain source materials are generally addressed best
through treatment because of technical uncertainties
regarding the long-term reliability of containment of
these materials, and/or the serious consequences of
exposure should a release occur. These expectations
also reflect the conclusion that other source materials
generally can be reliably contained.
Screening of Alternatives
The NCP describes cost as one of three
"screening" criteria (the others being effectiveness and
implementability) used to identify higher cost
alternatives that should not be carried forward for
detailed evaluation. Alternatives may be screened out
if they:
1. Provide "effectiveness and implementability
similar to that of another alternative by employing
a similar method of treatment or engineering
control, but at greater cost" (40 CFR
300.430(e)(7)(iii)).
2. Have costs that are "grossly excessive compared to
[their] overall effectiveness" (40 CFR
300.430(e)(7)(iii)). For example, the costs
associated with treating a complex mixture of
heterogeneous wastes without discrete hot
spots (e.g., a large municipal landfill) would
likely be considered excessive in comparison to
the effectiveness of such treatment. As a result, a
treatment alternative for such a site would likely
be eliminated from consideration during the
screening process.
Cost estimates at the alternative screening stage
should focus on relative, rather than absolute,
accuracy. At the screening stage, it may also be
unnecessary to evaluate costs that are common to all
alternatives.
© CONSIDERATION OF COST
DURING THE DETAILED ANALYSIS
OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE
IDENTIFICATION OF A PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
The purpose of the detailed analysis is to
objectively assess the alternatives with respect to nine
evaluation criteria that implement the statutory
provisions of CERCLA section 121. This analysis
consists of an individual evaluation of each alternative
with respect to each criterion, and a comparison of
options designed to determine the relative performance
of the alternatives and identify major trade-offs among
them (i.e., relative advantages and disadvantages) with
respect to the same factors.
The decision maker uses information assembled
and evaluated during the detailed analysis in selecting
a remedial action. Cost estimates at the detailed
analysis stage should capture all remedial costs and,
whenever possible, should provide an accuracy of +50
percent to -30 percent. Sensitivity analysis may be
warranted if a cost estimate might vary significantly
with relatively small changes in the underlying
assumptions, especially those concerning the effective
life of a remedial action, the O & M costs, the duration
of cleanup, site characteristics (e.g., volume of
contaminated material), and the discount rate (RI/FS
Guidance, page 6-12).
The actual process of selecting a Superfund
remedy is the decision making bridge between
development of remedial alternatives during the FS
and documentation of the selected remedy in a ROD.
The process begins with the identification of a
preferred remedial alternative from among those
developed in the FS. This preferred alternative is then
presented to the public for comment in the form of a
Proposed Plan. Based on the review of public
comments, a final remedy selection decision is made
and documented in a ROD.
-------
Cost is a critical factor in the process of
identifying a preferred remedy. In fact, CERCLA and
the NCP require that every remedy selected must be
cost-effective. A brief summary of the relationship
between the nine remedy selection criteria and the five
principal statutory remedy selection requirements will
provide a useful context for a discussion of the role of
cost in the remedy selection process. For a more
detailed discussion of the nine criteria and the remedy
selection process in general, see EPA's Remedy
Selection Guidance.
Relationship Between the Nine Criteria
and Statutory Requirements for
Remedy Selection
During the remedy selection process, nine
evaluation criteria are considered in distinct groups
which play specific roles in working toward the
selection of a remedy that satisfies the five principal
statutory requirements. The nine evaluation criteria
include two "threshold" criteria, five "balancing"
criteria (including cost), and two "modifying" criteria
(state and community acceptance), as illustrated in
Exhibit 2. The modifying criteria are considered to the
extent possible during the process leading up to and
including the Proposed Plan, and are fully considered
after public comments on that plan have been received.
Following receipt and consideration of public
comments, including any new information they might
contain, the decision maker makes a final decision
which is documented in the ROD.
The first two statutory requirements ~ protection
of human health and the environment, and compliance
with ARARs (unless a waiver is justified) ~ are
embodied in the two threshold criteria. A remedial
alternative must satisfy these two requirements to be
eligible for further evaluation against the other seven
factors.
Advantages and disadvantages of alternatives that
satisfy the threshold criteria are balanced using the five
balancing criteria, and the two modifying criteria (if
there is enough information to consider these latter
criteria in advance of the formal public comment
process). This balancing determines which option
represents the remedy that utilizes "permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable" (MEP) for that site (40 CFR
300.430(f)(l)(ii) (E)). The decision maker considers the
statutory preference for treatment as an "overlay" to
inform and direct this balancing (id).
The alternatives are also separately evaluated
against a subset of the criteria to make the
determination of which option(s) satisfy the statutory
cost-effectiveness. A remedial alternative is cost-
effective if its "costs are proportional to its overall
effectiveness" (40 CFR 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(D)). Overall
effectiveness of a remedial alternative is determined by
evaluating the following three of the five balancing
criteria: long-term effectiveness and permanence;
reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume (TMV)
through treatment; and short-term effectiveness (See
Exhibit 3). Overall effectiveness is then compared to
cost to determine whether the remedy is cost-effective
(id.).
Cost considerations are therefore factored into the
balancing of alternatives in two ways. Cost is factored
into the determination of cost-effectiveness, as
described above. And, cost is evaluated along with the
other balancing criteria in determining which option
represents the practicable extent to which permanent
solutions and treatment or resource recovery
technologies can be used at the site. This balancing
emphasizes two of the five criteria (long-term
effectiveness and permanence, and reduction of TMV
through treatment) (40 CFR 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(E)).
However, in practice, decisions typically will turn on
the criteria that distinguish the different cleanup
options most. The expectations anticipate some of the
likely tradeoffs in several common situations, although
site-specific factors will always play a role.
The Role of Cost in Determining
Whether to Waive ARARs
Section 121 of CERCLA specifies that all
remedial actions must "meet any Federal standards,
requirements, criteria or limitations that are
determined to be legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements." Specific statutes cited in
CERCLA that might present such an ARAR include
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Toxic Substances
Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Marine
Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act. In addition
to the Federal ARAR requirement, remedial actions
must meet any applicable or relevant and appropriate
promulgated State standard, requirement, criterion or
limitation if it is more stringent than the corresponding
Federal requirement. As previously discussed,
compliance with ARARs is one of the two threshold
criteria for the selection of a preferred remedy.
-------
Exhibit 2
RELATIONSHIP OF THE NINE CRITERIA
TO THE STATUTORY FINDINGS
NINE CRITERIA
STATUTORY FINDINGS
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
AND PERMANENCE
TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR
VOLUME REDUCTION
THROUGH TREATMENT
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
STATE AGENCY ACCEPTANCE
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs OR
JUSTIFICATION OF A WAIVER
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT
SOLUTIONS AND TREATMENT OR
RECOVERY TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PRACTICABLE ("MEP")
PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A
PRINCIPAL ELEMENT OR EXPLANATION AS
TO WHY PREFERENCE NOT SATISFIED
Cost is not a factor in the identification of ARARs.
However, CERCLA authorizes the waiver of an ARAR
with respect to a remedial alternative if any one of six
bases exist (See Exhibit 4). As described below, cost
may be a consideration with respect to determining
whether a technical impracticability, equivalent level
of performance, or Fund-balancing waiver is
warranted.
1. Technical Impracticability
Cost is relevant to the technical impracticability
waiver, because engineering feasibility is ultimately
limited by cost. EPA has stated that cost can be
considered in evaluating technical impracticability,
although it "should generally play a subordinate role"
and should not be a major factor unless compliance
would be "inordinately costly" (55 FR at 8748, March
8, 1990). Thus, the role of cost in evaluating technical
impracticability is more limited than in the general
balancing of tradeoffs with respect to the remedy
selection criteria, but cost may be considered in certain
cases.
2. Equivalent Level of Performance
This waiver is available when an alternative will
provide a level of performance equivalent to that
required by the ARAR, but through an alternative
design or method of operation. While cost is not
considered in evaluating equivalence, this waiver can
provide cost-saving flexibility in selecting remedies.
Alternative, less expensive technologies that attain the
same outcome (e.g., concentration of residuals) should
be explored before concluding that a highly costly
approach must be adopted because it is an action-
specific ARAR.
3. Fund Balancing
For Fund-financed remedies, the fund-balancing
waiver may be invoked when compliance with an
ARAR would not provide a balance between the need
to provide protection at a site and the need to address
other sites. EPA's policy is to consider this waiver
when the total cost of a remedy is greater than four
times the national average cost of remediating an
operable unit (currently, 4x$10 million, or $40
million), or in other cases where "EPA determines
-------
Exhibit 3
ELEMENTS OF THE CERCLA REMEDY SELECTION
COST-EFFECTIVENESS DETERMINATION
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
AND PERMANENCE
MAGNITUDE OF RESIDUAL RISK
ADEQUACY AND RELIABILITY OF
CONTROLS
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY,
OR VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT
TREATMENT PROCESS USED AND
MATERIALS TREATED
AMOUNT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DESTROYED
OR TREATED
DEGREE OF EXPECTED REDUCTIONS IN TOXICITY,
MOBILITY, AND VOLUME
DEGREE TO WHICH TREATMENT IS IRREVERSIBLE
TYPE AND QUANTITY OF RESIDUALS REMAINING
AFTER TREATMENT
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
PROTECTION OF COMMUNITY DURING
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
PROTECTION OF WORKERS DURING
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
TIME UNTIL REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES
ARE ACHIEVED
^- COST- -^
EFFECTIVENESS
COST
CAPITAL COSTS
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS
PRESENT WORTH COST
that the single site expenditure would place a
disproportionate burden on the fund" (55 FR at 8750).
Consideration of Cost in Determining
the Approach to Complying with
ARARs
Even when waivers are not available, the NCP
provides opportunity for cost-savings in achieving
cleanup goals. For example, the NCP requires cleanup
to relevant and appropriate Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) and non-zero MCL goals (MCLGs)
when remediating contaminated ground water whose
beneficial use is as a drinking water source. However,
the time frame over which the MCLs must be achieved
may be adjusted, depending on such factors as whether
the aquifer is currently being used or likely to be
needed in the near future. In some cases, allowing for
an extended time frame to achieve cleanup standards
provides the opportunity to develop less intensive,
lower cost alternatives.
O RECENT'SUPERFUND-REFORMS"
THAT"PROMOTE"COST-"
EFFECTIVENESS"
The Administrative reforms announced in October
1995 include several initiatives that are intended, in
part, to control remedy costs and further facilitate the
achievement of cost-effective cleanup.
National"Remedy"Review"Board"
The National Remedy Review Board brings
together senior EPA technical and policy experts to
review and make recommendations on proposed
cleanup actions at sites where the estimated cost for the
preferred alternative is more than $30 million, or more
than $10 million and 50% greater than the cost of the
least costly, protective, ARAR-compliant alternative.
Regional decision makers are expected to give the
Board's recommendations substantial weight. However,
other important factors may influence the final
Regional decision, such as public comment or
technical analysis of remedial options. This reform
-------
does not supersede any delegated decision making
authority.
Remedy'Selection "Rules"of'Thumb"and'
Management"Review'Triggers""
Rules of thumb consist of key principles and
expectations corresponding to three major policy areas
in the remedy selection process: assessment and
management of risk; treatment of principal threats
versus containment of low-level threat waste; and
ground water response actions. The purpose of this
initiative is to promote consistent, reasonable, and
cost-effective decision making through the appropriate
application of national policy and guidance. In
addition, EPA is developing a set of "Management
Review Triggers" that will flag senior EPA
management attention to specific aspects of proposed
remedies that should be examined closely to ensure
they are justified by site-specific conditions. Together,
rules of thumb and management triggers will become
part of a standard list of Superfund issues on which
Headquarters, Regions and States work together to
ensure appropriate application of national policy and
guidance.
Updating"Remedy"Decisions"
The purpose of this reform is to encourage
Superfund RODs. These updates are intended to bring
past remedy decisions into line with the current state
of knowledge with respect to remediation science and
technology, and in so doing to improve the cost-
effectiveness of site remediation while ensuring
reliable protection of human health and the appropriate
changes to remedies selected in existing environment.
The primary focus of the "Update" reform effort will
be ground water sites, as ground water science has
advanced a great deal since the inception of the
Superfund program. Three basic types of updates will
be emphasized, although other types of updates are not
excluded: a) where new remediation technology is
available; b) where remediation objectives or
approaches need revision; and c) where streamlining
of a ground water monitoring program is reasonable.
Exhibit"4"
BASES"FOR"ARAR"WAIVERS"
The alternative is an interim measure that will
become part of a total remedial action that will attain
theARAR;
Compliance with the requirement will result in
greater risk to human health and the environment than
other alternatives;
Compliance with the requirement is technically
impracticable from an engineering perspective;
The alternative will attain a standard of performance
that is equivalent to that required under the otherwise
applicable standard, requirement, or limitation
through use of another method;
With respect to a state requirement, the state has not
consistently applied, or demonstrated the intention to
consistently apply, the promulgated requirement in
similar circumstances at other remedial actions within
the state; or
For Fund-financed response actions only, an
alternative that attains the ARAR will not provide a
balance between the need for protection of human
health and the environment at the site and the
availability of Fund monies to respond to other sites.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this memorandum are intended solely as guidance. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create
any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this
memorandum, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of specific site circumstances. The Agency also reserves the right to
change this guidance at any time without public notice.
------- |