S-EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive: 9355.0-47FS
EPA 540-F-93-047
PB 93-963345
September! 993
Presumptive Remedies: Policy
and Procedures
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division 5203G
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Since Superfund's inception in 1980, the remedial and removal programs have found that certain categories of sites have
similar characteristics, such as types of contaminants present, types of disposal practices, or how environmental media are
affected. Based on information acquired from evaluating and cleaning up these sites, Superfund is undertaking an initiative
to develop presumptive remedies to accelerate future cleanups at these sites. The presumptive remedy approach is one tool
of acceleration within the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM).
The objective of the presumptive remedies initiative is to use the program's past experience to streamline site investigations
and speed up selection of cleanup actions. Overtime presumptive remedies are expected to ensure consistency in remedy
selection and reduce the cost and time required to clean up similar types of sites. Presumptive remedies are expected to
be used at all appropriate sites except under unusual site-specific circumstances. EPA plans to develop a series of directives
on presumptive remedies for various types of sites.
This directive serves as an overall guide to the presumptive remedies initiative and its effect on site cleanup. Through a
question and answer format, it explains, in general terms, ways in which presumptive remedies will streamline or change
the remedial and removal processes from the conventional processes and how certain Superfund policies will be affected
by the initiative. This directive also unites the series of directives, due to come out over the next year, on presumptive
remedies for specific site types (e.g., Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), wood treaters, ground water). This general
directive, together with the site type-specific directives, will provide readers with a comprehensive knowledge of the
procedural as well as policy considerations of the presumptive remedies initiative. The directive is designed for use by staff
involved in managing site cleanups (e.g., Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), Site
Assessment Managers (SAMs)). Site managers in other programs, such as RCRA Corrective Action, the Underground
Storage Tank program, State Project Managers, or private sector parties, may also use this directive, as appropriate.
Provided below are several common questions and answers
regarding general issues associated with presumptive
remedies.
Q1 . What Are Presumptive Remedies and
How Should They Be Used?
A. Presumptive Remedies are preferred technologies
for common categories of sites, based on historical
patterns of remedy selection and EPA's scientific
and engineering evaluation of performance data on
technology implementation. EPA has evaluated
technologies that have been consistently selected at
past sites using the remedy selection criteria set out
in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP); reviewed
currently available performance data on the
application of these technologies; and has
determined that a particular remedy, or set of
remedies, is presumptively the most appropriate
for addressing specific types of sites.
Presumptive remedies are expected to be used
at all appropriate sites. The approaches described
in each presumptive remedies directive are designed
to accommodate a wide range of site-specific
circumstances. In some cases, multiple technologies
are included (e.g., VOCs); in others, various
-------
components of the presumptive remedy are optional,
depending on site situation (e.g., municipal
landfills). Further, these directives recognize that
at some sites, there may be unusual circumstances
(such as complex contaminant mixtures, soil
conditions, or extraordinary State and community
concerns) that may require the site manager to look
beyond the presumptive remedies for additional
(perhaps more innovative) technologies or remedial
approaches.
These tools will help site managers to focus data
collection efforts during site investigations (e.g.,
remedial investigations, removal site evaluation)
and significantly reduce the technology evaluation
phase (e.g., Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
(EE/CA) and/or Feasibility Studies (FS)) for certain
categories of sites. The specific impacts on the
various stages of the remedy selection process are
highlighted in questions 7 and 8 of this guidance. It
is advised that presumptive remedies be used with
the assistance of the expert teams1 for the various
categories of sites.
Q2. Why Should Presumptive Remedies Be
Used?
Presumptive remedies are expected to have several
benefits. Limiting the number of technologies
considered should promote focused data collection,
resulting in streamlined site assessments and
accelerated remedy selection decisions which
achieve time and cost savings. Additional time
savings could be realized during the remedial design
since early knowledge of the remedy may allow
technology-specific data to be collected upfront
during the remedial investigation. Presumptive
remedies will also produce the added benefit of
promoting consistency in remedy selection, and
improving the predictability of the remedy selection
process for communities and potentially responsible
parties (PRPs).
Presumptive remedies may be used as part of a
wide variety of response actions. These actions
include non-time-critical removal and early
remedial actions, actions at sites with different
leads (e.g., Fund-lead, State-lead, PRP-lead), actions
addressing one or more contaminated media, actions
with several operable unitss, and actions involving
treatment trains.
Q3. Can Presumptive Remedies be
Implemented Within the Existing NCP
Process?
Yes. The presumptive remedy approach is
consistent with all of the requirements of the NCP,
and in particular the site management principle of
streamlining (see section 300.430(a)(l)(n)(C)). The
presumptive remedy approach simply consolidates
what have become the common, expected results of
site-specific decision making at Superfund sites
over the past decade. The various presumptive
remedies directives and supporting documentation
(e.g., "Feasibility Study Analysis for CERCLA
Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils")
provide the basis for an administrative record which
justifies consideration of a very limited number of
cleanup options. These materials summarize the
findings of EPA's research and analysis, and the
reasons that were found for generally considering
certain technologies more or less appropriate.
The availability of presumptive remedies does not
preclude a Region from expanding the FS (either
on its own initiative or at the suggestion of outside
parties) to consider other technologies under unusual
site-specific circumstances. The site type directives
will define the kind of circumstances (e.g., soil
conditions, heterogeneous and complicated
contamination mixtures, field tests demonstrating
significant advantages of alternate or innovative
technologies, etc.) that may make presumptive
remedies less clearly suited for particular sites.
Most of these directives also provide references to
additional technologies if the presumptive remedies
are found not to apply at a particular site.
Q4. How Did the Presumptive Remedies
Initiative Evolve?
A. The general concept of presumptive remedies was
first proposed in 1990 during the Superfund 90-
Day Study and subsequently in 1991 during the
30-Day Study as a method of accelerating the
remedial process. These management studies
were efforts to generate options for accelerating
the overall Superfund clean-up process. The
presumptive remedies initiative is also consistent
with, and supports, a larger program initiative
known as the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
1 It is envisioned that for most categories of sites, teams of experts (technical, legal, policy, etc.) who have developed the
presumptive remedies guidance and Regional site managers conducting field demonstrations, will be available to assist site
managers in implementing presumptive remedies on a site-specific basis.
-------
Table 1
Current Presumptive Remedies and Contacts
Site Type/Schedule
General Policy and Procedures
(9/93)
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) in Soils
(9/93)
Wood Treaters
(6/94)
Municipal Landfills
(9/93)
Contaminated Ground Water
(1/94)
Region 7 Pilots -
PCB Sites, Coal Gas Sites,
Grain Storage Sites (6/94)
Presumptive Remedy(ies)
NA
Soil Vapor Extraction, Thermal
Desorption, Incineration
For Organics -
Incineration, Bioremediation,
Dechlorination
For Inorganics -
Immobilization
Containment (could include
capping, leachate collection
and treatment, LF gas
treatment, institutional
controls, etc.)
Pump and Treat
(Will specify preferred
treatment technologies &
describe overall approach)
TBD
Anticipated Products
Presumptive Remedies:
Policy and Procedures
Presumptive Remedies: Site
Characterization and
Technology Selection for
CERCLA Sites with VOCs in
Soils
Presumptive Remedy: Wood
Treating Sites
Technology Selection Guide for
Wood Treater Sites (5/93)
Presumptive Remedy for
CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites
TBD
TBD
EPA Contact
Shahid Mahmud
Headquarters, HSCD
(703) 603-8789
Shahid Mahmud
Headquarters, HSCD
(703) 603-8789
Lisa Boynton
Headquarters, ERD
(703) 603-9052
Harry Allen
Emergency Response Division
(908)321-6747
Andrea McLaughlin
Headquarters, HSCD
(703) 603-8793
Ken Lovelace
Headquarters, HSCD
(703) 603-8787
Diana Engeman
Region 7
(913)551-7746
KEY:
TBD - To Be Determined
NA - Not Applicable
Q5.
Model (SACM). SACM incorporates theexperience
gained from past Superfund actions into an integrated
approach to site cleanup aimed at getting response
action decisions made and implemented more quidkly.
The presumptive remedies initiative is one mechanism
for accomplishing the broad sreamlining goal set fort
by SACM. The presemptive remedies initiative was
also identifies as one of the Adminsitrative
Improvements to Superfund in June of 1993.
What Other Presumptive Remedy Initiatives are
Underway or Planned?
There are a variety of presumptive remedy activities
currently planned or underway. Table 1 lists the site
types with the anticipated schedule of associated
presumptive remedy products that are currently
underway along with the Headquarters and Regional
contacts. There are four site types for which
presumptive remedies are being developed in EPA
Headquarters: VOCs, wood treaters, municipal
landfills, and contaminated ground-water sites.
Concurrently, Region 7 is preparing presumptive
remedy guidances for PCB, coal gasification, and grain
storage sites.
Q6. How Will Presumptive Remedies Affect the Remedy
Secection Process?
A. Presumptive remedies are anticipated to affect seSveral
phases of the ccurrent remedy selection process. A
diagram depicting the generic impacts on the overall
process is provded in Table 2.
Data collection during the initial site
assessment(Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection
(PA/SI)
-------
Table 2
Generic Effect of Presumptive Remedies
SITE ASSESSMENT |
| FEASIBILITY STUDY OR EE/CA
Phases of Cleanup Process
PA/SI or Removal Site Evaluation
Scoping
• Collect and analyze existing data
• Identify initial project/OUs and
remedial action objectives
• Identify range of likely alternatives
• Identify potential ARARs
• Identify initial DQOs
• Prepare project plans
Remedial Investigation
• Conduct field investigation
• Define nature and extent of
contamination
« Identify ARARs
• Conduct baseline risk assessment
Remedy Selection
• Identify potential treatment
technologies and
containment/disposal requirements
• Screen technologies
• Assemble technologies into
alternatives
• Screen alternatives as necessary to
reduce number subject to detailed
analysis
• Further refine alternatives as
necessary
• Analyze alternatives against the nine
criteria and each other
Proposed Plan
Record of Decision
Remedial Design
Effect on
Cleanup
Process
X
O
•
•
o
0
•
X
-------
Q?.
A.
Q8.
remaining alternatives to be limited to variations of
the presumptive remedy). The site-specific directive
and supporting documentation (e.g., "Feasibility
Study Analysis for CERCLA Municipal Landfill
Sites") along with this directive then can be placed
in the administrative record for the site to support
the elimination of the screening step identified in
section 300.430 (e) (1) of the NCP. Further
supporting materials can be provided by
Headquarters (e.g., FS reports included in the
analysis, technical reports), as needed. The specific
presumptive remedy directives address the process
of eliminating the alternatives development and
screening step of the RI/FS or EE/CA in further
detail. The directives also provide generic
discussion of a partial nine criteria analysis
(excluding state ARARs and community and state
acceptance) and may help streamline the detailed
analysis of alternatives within the FS and EE/CA
reports. However, the user is cautioned that the
criteria are discussed on a general basis and the nine
criteria analysis should be supplemented to reflect
the site-specific conditions.
The Proposed Plan (PP) and subsequent ROD
would be similarly streamlined by focusing only on
the presumptive remedy(ies). The remedial design
(RD) may be streamlined since some RD data will
likely have been collected previously during the
site assessment and RI.
How Will Presumptive Remedies Affect
the Removal Process?
Non-time critical removal actions are anticipated
to be used more often to accomplish early actions
at Superfund sites under SACM. The presumptive
remedies approach will focus the data collection
during the removal site evaluation and reduce the
number of technologies identified and analyzed in
the EE/CA. Presumptive remedies are not expected
to have an impact on emergency and time-critical
actions under the removal program.
What are the Implications of
Presumptive Remedies for Innovative
Technologies?
The NCP in section 300.430 (a) (1) (iii) (E) states
that "EPA expects to consider using innovative
technology when such technology offers the
potential for comparable or superior treatment
performance and implementability, fewer or lesser
adverse impacts than other available approaches,
or lower costs for similar levels of performance
than demonstrated technologies." The use of the
presumptive remedies may tend to reduce the
frequency of the full evaluation of innovative
technologies. However, as indicated previously,
the presumptive remedies provide a tool for
streamlining the remedy selection process. They
do not preclude the consideration of innovative
technologies should the technologies be
demonstrated to be as effective or superior to the
presumptive remedies. Innovative technologies
may be evaluated and recommended in addition to
the presumptive remedies where these criteria are
met.
EPA encourages review of the latest Innovative
Technologies Semi-Annual Reports or Engineering
Bulletins for the up-to-date information on the
potential effectiveness and applicability of various
innovative technologies. Site managers are strongly
encouraged to involve the site-type expert team
(see Question 13) to determine whether unusual
circumstances exist to consider a non-presumptive
remedy based on site-specific conditions and/or
community, state, and PRP concerns, or the
availability of a potentially promising innovative
technology.
Q9. How Will Presumptive Remedies Affect
Risk Assessments?
A. Generally, the role of baseline risk assessments
under the presumptive remedy approach would be
unaffected with Municipal Landfill sites being a
notable exception. It is anticipated that risk
assessments would still be needed on a site-specific
basis to assist site managers in determining the
need for a response action. EPA managers have
indicated the value of the risk assessment in
communicating with states, PRPs, and local
communities about the nature and extent of health
and environmental threats. Therefore, it is
recommended that the current risk assessment
process be continued on an individual site basis
except for Municipal Landfills. The site manager
should refer to the EPA Directive entitled
"Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal
Landfill Sites," Directive No. 9355.0-49FS to
identify streamlining opportunities at Municipal
Landfill sites.
Guidance on developing risk-based preliminary
remediation goals (PRGs) would be unaffected
under this initiative. These goals are needed for
individual sites especially in the absence of ARARs
to assist in determining which remedial options
-------
will result in medium-specific chemical
concentrations that are protective of human health.
For example, there may be several candidate
presumptive remedies identified in the site-type
directives. But it is the extent and degree of
contamination across a given site that will determine
whether a technology, which is predicted to reduce
a chemical's concentration to some specified level,
will be adequate by itself to produce protective
concentrations following remedial action. For
some sites or site locations, because of the magnitude
of contamination or co-occurrence of contaminants,
it may be necessary to assemble several technologies
into a treatment train to adequately reduce levels of
all chemicals of concern in a medium to protective
levels. In other cases, it may be necessary to
evaluate the use of institutional and/or engineering
controls on an area following remediation to ensure
protection during subsequent land use. In other
words, it is not reasonable to assume that because
a specific technology resulted in "protection" at
one site, it will result in protective levels at all sites.
A determination that the selected remedy will result
in protection of human health and the environment
must be made for each site. Both ARARs and risk-
based PRGs are important tools in this exercise.
Generally, presumptive remedy directives will
specify those technologies that have been
determined to achieve levels protective of human
health and the environment under a variety of site
conditions. However, because all sites differ to
some extent, especially in their relation to
surrounding communities and sensitive ecosystems,
a determination must still be made on a site-specific
basis as to how a given remedy design is expected
to achieve "protectiveness" during remedy
construction and following remedial action. Overall
protection of human health and the environment is
one of two threshold considerations (the other
being compliance with ARARs) that must be met in
order for an alternative to be eligible for selection
as the remedy for a given site.
Q10. What if Outside Parties such as PRPs
or the Community Want Other
Alternatives Considered?
A. The identification of a presumptive remedy does
not relieve EPA of the obligation to propose the
remedy for public comment, or to respond to
comments suggesting that other alternatives should
have been considered. In some cases, the
information in the site-type directive and supporting
documentation may be sufficient to address such
comments; in others, additional analysis may be
required to assess the relative merits of an alternative
technology proposed by a commenter.
To reduce the risk of delay due to the need to
respond to such comments, it is generally desirable
to publicize the planned use of presumptive remedies
early on, and give States, communities, PRPs, and
others an early opportunity to express any concerns
they may have about focusing the FS or EE/CA in
this way. The agency may then decide whether to
include additional alternatives in the FS or EE/CA
so that those concerns can be addressed before the
remedy is proposed.
In general, it is expected that the directive and
supporting documents will provide substantial
justification for preferring the presumptive remedy
over alternative technologies. Therefore, the
submission of comments advocating other
approaches does not necessarily require broadening
of the FS or EE/CA, or conducting additional
analysis after the plan has been proposed. Whether
additional documentation is required will depend
upon how substantial or persuasive the comments
are (e.g., whether a comment identifies unusual site
circumstances that seriously call into question the
applicability of the presumptive remedy). The
Region will have to assess this by evaluating each
comment on its own merits.
It should be noted that even if the FS is broadened
to consider alternatives other than the presumptive
remedy, much of the benefit of the presumptive
remedy approach can still be achieved. In such
cases, it is not necessary to address the full array of
possible technologies, rather only the presumptive
remedy and the specific alternative(s) that genuinely
warrant detailed study. Therefore, the FS can still
be narrowed and data gathering can still be focused.
Q11. How do State ARARs Affect the Use of
Presumptive Remedies?
A. Any remedy, including presumptive remedies, must
be selected in accordance with Section 121(d)
(2)(A)(ii) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act
-------
(CERCLA), which specifies that selected remedial
actions comply with promulgated standards under
Federal and more stringent State environmental
laws (i.e., State ARARs). At this time it is difficult
to predict situations where presumptive remedies
will not comply with State ARARs, and such issues
must necessarily be addressed on a site-specific
basis. However, as the presumptive remedies have
been widely selected, they are likely to be capable
of meeting State ARARs.
Q12. What Are the Implications of
Presumptive Remedies on Community,
PRP, and State Relations?
A. It will generally be desirable to notify the
community, State, and PRP(s) as early in the clean-
up process as possible that presumptive remedies
are being considered for the site. This notification
can take the form of a fact sheet, a notice in the
newspaper, and/or a public meeting in which the
site manager (with assistance from the expert team,
as desired) explains the rationale for taking such
actions and distributes the appropriate directives of
the site type in question. Additionally, the site
manager should explain the potential benefits
associated with the use of presumptive remedies
such as time and cost savings, and consistency.
Early discussions about the rationale for
presumptive remedies should help instill confidence
in both the technologies and remedy selection
processes.
Q13. How Will EPA Communicate Progress
on Current Presumptive Remedies,
Newly Developed Presumptive
Remedies, and Future Issues Related
to Presumptive Remedies?
A. Information about presumptive remedies will be
communicated in several ways. First, it is
anticipated that an orientation will be provided to
communicate the key elements of presumptive
remedies to Regional site managers as appropriate.
This may be followed by periodic meetings with
expert teams, if necessary, to scope out the
applications of presumptive remedies on a site-
specific basis. The expert team may also be used to
convey any new developments on technology or
policies and procedures for general or specific
applications. A quarterly conference call is also
anticipated between site managers and the expert
teams to allow for the exchange of ideas and to
identify and resolve technical issues. Technology
selection directives, SACM Bulletins, and Q&A
directives will be published periodically to
disseminate information on presumptive remedies
and related issues as they arise. Finally, the
presumptive remedies directives on the various site
categories will be updated every several years to
reflect new technology development and up-to-
date performance data, as appropriate.
fr
Notice:
The policies set out in this document are intended solely as guidance to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) personnel; they are not final EPA actions and do not constitute rulemaking.
These policies 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
document, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of specific site circumstances.
EPA also reserves the right to change the guidance at any time without public notice.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |