United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-220)
905R89109
Directive 9200.b-^ojro
November 1989
>EPA Innovative Technology
BEST™ Solvent
Extraction Process
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Solvent extraction is potentially effec-
tive in treating oily sludges and soils by
separating the media into three fractions:
oil, water, and solids. As the fractions sepa-
rate, certain contaminants are concentrated
into specific phases. For example, PCBs
concentrate in the oil fraction, while metals,
unless organically bound, accumulate in the
solids fraction. Individual phases can then
and water in the feed simultaneously solvate
with the cold TEA creating a homogeneous
mixture. As the solvent breaks the oil-
water-solid bonds, the solids are released
from the emulsion. These solids are subse-
quently removed by centrifuging, which en-
sures submicron particles are removed. The
solids are passed to a second mixing tank
where they are washed with additional sol-
vent and centrifuged a second time. The wet
solids (about 50% solids by weight) are sent
Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of a Typical BEST
Treatment Facility
Water Treatment Water Product
Raw Waste .
£££>!
Power
Peripheral
Utilities
Power
Steam
Cooling Water
Instrumentation Air
Site Specific
Note adapted from Resources Conservation Company, tor Booz. Alton & Hamilton he
be treated more efficiently. Solvent extrac-
tion is capable of processing the oily wastes
shown in Table 1. Table 2 lists the effective-
ness of solvent extraction on general con-
taminant groups.
One type of solvent extraction, BEST™
treatment, is a mobile solvent extraction sys-
tem developed by Resources Conservation
Company (RCC). This system uses one or
more secondary or tertiary amines [usually
triethylamine (TEA)] to separate toxic wastes
and oils from sludges or soils. The BEST™
technology is based on the fact that TEA is
miscible in water at temperatures below
65°F.
A typical process diagram for the BEST™
process is shown in Figure 1. This process
begins by mixing and agitating the cold sol-
vent and sludge or soil in a mixing tank. Oil
to a dryer where the solvent is vaporized and
collected for recycling. Dry solids contain-
ing heavy metals may require further treat-
ment before disposal.
The liquids from the first centrifuge,
containing the oil and water extracted from
the feed, are heated in a series of heat ex-
changers. As the temperature of the liquids
increase, the water separates from the oil-
solvent. The oil-solvent fraction is decanted
and sent to a stripping column where the
solvent is recycled and the oil is discharged
for recycling or disposal. The water phase is
passed to a second stripping column where
residual solvent is recovered for recycling;
the water is typically discharged to a local
wastewater treatment plant.
An advantage of RCC's facility is the
modular capability, allowing on-site treat-
Table 1
Specific Wastes Capable of Treatment
Using Solvent Extraction
RCRA Listed Hazardous Wastes
• Creosote-Saturated Sludge
• Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Float
• Slop Oil Emulsion Solids
• Heat Exchanger Bundles Cleaning Sludge
• API Separator Sludge
• Tank Bottoms (Leaded)
Non-Listed Hazardous Wastes
• Primary Oil/Solids/Water Separation Sludges
• Secondary Oil/Solids/Water Separation Sludges
• Bio-Sludges
• Cooling Tower Sludges
• HF Alkglation Sludges
• Waste FCC Catalyst
• Spent Catalyst
• Stretford Unit Solution
• Tank Bottoms
• Treated Clays
Table 2
Effectiveness of Solvent Extraction on
General Contaminant Groups for
Soil and Sludge
Testability Groups
1
1
|
I
Halogenated volatiles
Halogenated semi-volatiles
Non-halogenated volatiles
Non-halogenated semi-volatiles
PCBs
Pesticides
Dioxms/Furans
Organic cyanides
Organic corrosives
Volatile metals
Non-volatile metals
Asbestos
Radioactive materials
Inorganic corrosives
Inorganic cyanides
Oxidizers
Reducers
Effectiveness
Soil SKidg.
0
«
0
e
o
e
9
Q
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
X
X
Q
•
d
•
•
w
d
d
g
0
0
o
0
o
0
X
X
Demonstrated Effectiveness
Potental Effectiveness
No Expected Effectiveness Q
Potentially Detnmental X
-------
ment. Other advantages of the BEST™ technology include the pro-
duction of dry solids, the recovery and reuse of oil, and waste
volume reduction. BEST™ does not, however, reduce contaminant
toxicity. Furthermore, implementation can require complex engi-
neering considerations.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING TREATMENT
FEASIBILITY
The BEST™ process is not limited by organics or oil concen-
trations. Performance, however, can be influenced by the presence
of detergents and emulsifiers, low pH materials, and reactivity of the
sludge with the solvent Other factors that affect feasibility and
actions to minimize these affects are listed in Table 3. Treatability
tests should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the
treatment on specific site conditions.
Table 3
Site-Specific Characteristics and Impacts on BEST™
Characteristics
Impacting Process
Feisbility
Presence of elevated levels
ofvolatiles
Particle diameter greater
than 0.25 inches
pH less than 10
Presence of high amounts
of emulsifiers
Compounds that undergo
strong reactions under
highly alkaline conditions
Types of waste
Reasons for
Potential
impact
Volatiles may combine with
process solvent
Equipment used in process not
capable of handling large
particles
TEA (used in extraction
process) is weak base and will
not exist in solvent form at pH
less than 10
Adversely affect oil/water
phase separation
Strong reactions may occur
during treatment because of
caustic addition
Some materials are not
suitable for chemical extraction
(e.g., highly volatile organics
and wastes containing mostly
toxic metals)
Actions to
Minimize Impacts
Use an additional separation
step
Screen waste to remove large
particles or cash in a
hammermill
Raise pH of waste with
caustic soda
Increase quantity of solvent
Raise pH of waste with TEA
instead of caustic soda
Conduct pre- and/or
post-treatment
TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS
TEA is flammable in the presence of oxygen, therefore, the
treatment system must be sealed from the atmosphere and operated
under a nitrogen blanket. Also, TEA is known to be toxic to aquatic
life and, depending on the disposal method, may need to be removed
from the solids. Prior to treatment it is necessary to raise the pH to
greater than 10, creating an environment where TEA is stable. This
may be accomplished by adding either sodium hydroxide or TEA.
(Sodium hydroxide is more cost-effective, however, TEA is less
reactive.) It may also be necessary to add water or solvent to the feed
to create a slurry capable of being pumped.
Additionally, pre-treatment may require screening of the feed
to ensure that particles are all less than 0.25 inches. Because the
equipment is incapable of handling large diameter particles, feed
may be passed through a 2-inch screen and subsequently crushed in
a 0.2-inch hammermill.
Further treatment of by-products may be necessary before dis-
posal. Specifically, wastewater treatment may include carbon ad-
sorption or biological treatment to remove residual organics. Chemi-
cal precipitation also may be required to remove soluble metal con-
taminants. Free water from sludge ponds may either be treated with
the sludge or may be treated separately. In addition, waste oil may
either be recycled or reused as fuel. If neither option is viable, the
oil should be tested to determine appropriate treatment, storage, or
disposal actions. Last, leachate tests should be conducted on
residual solids to determine if stabilization is necessary before
disposal. Other post-treatment alternatives for solids may include
thermal stripping, wet air oxidation, in-situ vitrification, soil wash-
ing, and/or glycolate dehalogenaiion.
RCC quotes the cost of treatability studies to be $4,500 for 1 kg
of non-PCB contaminated wastes and $5,500 for 1 kg of waste con-
taining PCBs. These costs include three extractions and do not
include organic analyses. Treatment costs range from $90/ton for a
large facility treating 200 tons/day to $280/ton for a small facility
treating 30 tons/day. More information about RCC can be found in
Table 4.
Table 4
BEST™ Vendor Information
Company
Resources Conservation Co.
Contact
Paul McGough
Address
3006 Northup Way
Bellevue, WA 98004
(206) 828-2400
Note: BEST™ was developed and patented by Resources Conservation Co.
TECHNOLOGY STATUS
The first full-scale BEST™ unit was used at the CERCLA
General Refining Site in Garden City, Georgia. Further information
is summarized in Table 5. Solvent extraction is the selected remedial
action for the Pinette's Salvage site and the F. O'Connor site, both
located in Maine; the actual process has not yet been determined.
The BEST™ process has been selected for evaluation under the
SITE Program. Formal demonstration and testing is being post-
poned until the developer has obtained funding for a demonstration
at an appropriate site.
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTACTS
For more information regarding the BEST™ technology, con-
tact Edward Bates, U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Labora-
tory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, (513) 569-7774 or FTS 684-7774.
Table 5
BEST™ Status at CERCLA Sites
SELECTED;
Region 4 - General Refining, GA
(Removal Action) FY86-FY87
PCBs, lead in Sludge
3,700 tons
-------
905R91109
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9200.5-2161
May 1991
Superfund RECEIVED
Records of Decision
Update
8 3.1931
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division OS - 220W
Intermittent Bulletin
Volumes Number2
This issue of the ROD Update summarizes the latest information and guidance in three areas: (1) ROD Ground Water Language; (2) The Twenty-Second Remedy
Delegation Report and Consultation Requirements; and (3) Administrative Records.
Record Of Decision (ROD)
Ground Water Language
OSWER issued Directive 9283.1-03,
Suggested ROD Language for Various
Ground Water Remediation Options, on
October 10,1990. This Directive provides
suggested language for Records of Deci-
sion addressing ground water and
supplemental guidance relative to ground
water remediation actions.
BACKGROUND
In 1988, OSWER conducted a study of the
efficacy of ground water treatment systems
in achieving specified cleanup levels at 19
sites where ground water extraction was
being implemented for containment and/
or reduction of ground watercontaminants.
Based on the findings and recommenda-
tions of the study, OSWER issued Direc-
tive No. 9355.4-03, October 18, 1989,
Considerations in Ground Water
Remediation at Superfund Sites, which
recommended consideration of three ap-
proaches to planning and implementing
ground water remediation:
Initiation of early or interim response
measuresdesignedtopreventfurther
migration of contaminants during the
remedial investigation or until suffi-
cient information about system re-
sponse has been obtained to allow
final remedy selection
Provision for changes in the remedy
during implementation in the Record
of Decision, either by specifying a
contingency remedy or by selecting
an interim remedy and remediation
level
Collection of additional or supple-
mental information with which to better
assess contaminant mobility and
system effectiveness, such as data
related to vertical changes in hydraulic
conductivity, contaminant partitioning
between soil and ground water, and
the presence of nonaqueous phase
liquids.
RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE
Records of Decision should reflect the
amount of relative uncertainty believed to
be associated with achieving selected
remediation levels in ground water at a
particular site, and should be written to
reflect the purpose of a selected remedy:
As final actions, intended to restore
ground water quality
• As final actions, with a provision for
establishing contingency levels
As interim actions, (e.g., intended to
bring about plume containment or
generate additional performance
data), prior to issuance of a ROD.
Final Action
A Final Action Ground Water ROD without
contingency measure(s) is characterized
by low uncertainty and addresses
restoration actions. A Final Action ROD for
ground water restoration without a
contingency is appropriate when there is
little uncertainty that the remedy will
achieve the remediation levels specified
in the ROD throughout the area of
attainment. A statement including
remediation level, intended use, the basis
for future evaluation of the level during
remediation, a description of the selected
remedy and specific modifications to the
remedy warranted by performance data
during the remediation period, and planned
monitoring following completion of thefinal
action remediation should appear in the
Selected Remedy section of the ROD.
The suggested type of statement and
language for Final Action RODs is provided
on page 2.
Final Action With Contingency
Measures/Levels
Contingency Measures/Levels are char-
acterized by high to moderate uncertainty
and a potential ARARs waiver and also
may include potential containment goal(s).
During implementation and monitoring of
an active ground water remediation sys-
tem, information and data may develop
that indicate it is technically impracticable
to restore the aquifer or to achieve
remediation levels throughout the attain-
ment area. If this scenario is likely to
emerge, future changes in the ROD may
be anticipated by providingforcontingency
measures.
An ARARs waiver may/will be invoked,
accompanied by an Explanation of Sig-
nificant Difference (ESD), if it is determined
on the basis of criteria stated in the ROD
that MCLs/MCLGs or other ARARs can-
not be achieved within all portions of the
area of attainment or where it is anticipated
that it may be technically impracticable to
reach these and other levels targeted in
the ROD.
It may be necessary to do a ROD
amendment instead of an ESD if the
contingency that is implemented differs
fundamentally from that described in the
ROD. In some cases, RODs that predate
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
this guidance may require amendment
when contingency measures are techni-
cally appropriate because restoration of
the aquifer has been shown to be imprac-
ticable.
Contingency measures should be ex-
plained in sufficient detail in the Selected
Remedy and Comparative Analysis of
Alternatives sectionsof the ROD, allowing
thepublic appropriate opportunity to review
and comment on the contingency as well
as the selected remedy. More specifically,
remediation levels, the selected remedy,
specified modifications to the selected
remedy, and contingency measures and
criteria under which the contingency
measures would be implemented should
be spelled out in the Selected Remedy
section of the ROD.
Supporting Language should be placed in
the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
section of the ROD. The Statutory Deter-
minations section of the ROD should es-
tablish that both the selected remedy and
the contingency measures fulfill CERCLA
Section 121 requirements. An ARARs
waiver must be justified under the Compli-
ance with ARARs determination. The
suggested type of statement and language
for Final Action with Contingency Mea-
sures/Levels is provided on page 3.
Interim Actions
The Interim Action is characterized by
moderate to substantial uncertainty or early
act ion containment measures. The interim
action may be utilized 1) to prevent further
plume migration and begin cleanup during
RI/FS and post-RI/FS activities; and 2) to
obtain information about the response of
the aquifer to remediation measures in
order to define final cleanup goals practi-
cable for the site.
The purpose of the interim action should
be discussed in the Scope and Role of the
Operable Unit section of the ROD. The
purpose of the interim action may be to
begin restoration while additional infor-
mation is collected to better assess the
practicability of aquifer restoration before
the determination of final cleanup levels.
Preliminary cleanup levels may be identi-
fied for an interim action, but it should be
emphasized in the Scope and Role of the
Operable Unit section of the ROD that
while the purpose of the action is to work
toward the goal of restoration, it does not
constitute a final action for the ground
water. The purpose of an early interim
action may be used to restrict plume mi-
gration until an RI/FS for a final remedial
action is completed. Information collected
during implementation also will be used to
evaluate aquifer response to remediation.
Interim action RODs should not specify
final cleanup levels because such levels
are generally beyond the limited scope of
the action.
All interim action RODs should specify in
the Selected Remedy section, to the ex-
tent possible, the objectives for the interim
remedial action, scope of monitoring, and
evaluation of the efficacy of the interim
remedy (the period of operation that will
occur before a final decision is made re-
garding the practicability of aquifer resto-
ration). At the end of this time, afinal action
ROD should be prepared that specifies
the final remediation levels, and time frame
for the contaminated ground water at the
site.
The Interim Action should be supported by
language in the Comparative Analysis of
Alternatives section of the ROD. The lan-
guage should indicate that these actions
may not achieve final cleanup levels for
the ground water at the site, although they
are effective in the short-term in prevent-
ing further degradation and initiating re-
duction in toxicity, mobility, or volume.
MCLs/ MCLGs or state cleanup standards
will not be ARARs for an interim action
because they are beyond the scope of the
interim action. The nine-criteria evaluation
should focus on those criteria most perti-
nent to short-term effectiveness and re-
ductbnof toxicity, mobility or volume, con-
sistent with the scope and purpose of the
interim action. Additionally, language in
theStefuto/yDetemj/nafranssectionofthe
ROD should discuss the ways in which the
interim action satisfies the CERCLA sec-
tion 121 requirements within the scope of
the action (i.e., protectiveness of the
remedy). The suggested type of state-
ment and language for Interim Action is
provided on page 3.
Questions concerning ROD ground water
language should be directed to Jennifer
Sutler (703/308-8363 or FTS 398-8363) in
the Hazardous Site Control Division.
Final Action (Low Uncertainty, Restoration Actions)
The following type of statement should appear in the Selected Remedy section of
the ROD, with the blanks filled in appropriately:
The goal of this remedial action is to restore ground water to its beneficial use,
which is, at this site, (specify whether this is a potential or actual drinking water
source, or used for nondomestic purposes). Basedon information obtained during
the remedial investigation and on a careful analysis of all remedial alternatives,
EPA <(optktnal) and the State/Commonwealth of > believe that the
selected remedy will achieve this goal. It may become apparent, during implemen-
tation or operation oftheground water extraction system and its modifications, that
contaminant levels have ceased to decline and are remaining constant at levels
higher than the remediation goal over some portion of the contaminated plume. In
such a case, the system performance standards and/or the remedy may be
reevaluated.
The selected remedy will include ground water extraction for an estimated period
of years, during which the system's performance will be carefully
monitored on a regular basis and adjusted as warranted by the performance data
collected during .operation. Modifications may include any or all of the following:
Discontinuing pumping at individual wells where cleanup goals have been
attained
• Alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation points
Pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to allow adsorbed contami-
nants to partition into ground water
Installing additional extraction wells to facilitate or accelerate cleanup of the
contaminant plume
To ensure that cleanup levels are maintained, the aquifer will be monitored at those
wells where pumping has ceased on an occurrence of every years following
discontinuation of ground water extraction.
This language should be modified to reflect alternative uses and remediation goals
(such as in a Class III aquifer).
-------
Final Action With Contingency Measures/Goals
The following type of statement should
appear in the Selected Remedy section
of the ROD with the blanks filled in
appropriately:
The goal of this remedial action is to
restore the ground water to its benefi-
cial use, which is, at this site, (specify
whether this is a drinking water aquifer
or used for nondomestic purposes).
Based on information obtained during
the remedial investigation, and the
analysis of all remedial alternatives,
EPA <(optional) and the State/Com-
monwealth of > believe
that the selected remedy may be able
to achieve this goal. Ground water con-
tamination may be especially persis-
tent in the immediate vicinity of the
contaminants' source, where concen-
trations are relatively high. The ability
to achieve cleanup levels at all points
throughout the area of attainment, or
plume, cannot be determined until the
extraction system has been imple-
mented, modified as necessary, and
plume response monitored overtime. If
the selected remedy cannot meet the
specified remediation levels at any or
all of the monitoring points during
implementation, the contingency mea-
sures and objectives described in this
section may replace the selected rem-
edy and remediation levels for these
portions of the plume. Such contin-
gency measures will at a minimum pre-
vent combination of containment tech-
nologies < typically, ground water ex-
traction and treatment > and institu-
tional controls. These measures are
considered to protect human health
and the environment, and are techni-
cally practicable under the correspond-
ing circumstances.
The selected remedy will include ground
water extraction for an estimated period of
years, during which time the
system's performance will be carefully
monitored on a regular basis and adjusted
as warranted by the performance data
collected during operation. Modifications
may include any or all of the following:
Discontinuing pumping at individual
wells where cleanup goals have been
attained
Alternating pumping at wells to elimi-
nate stagnation points
Pulse pumpingto allow aquifer equili-
bration and encourage adsorbed
contaminants to partition into ground
water
Installing additional extraction wells
to facilitate or accelerate cleanup of
the contaminant plume
To ensure that cleanup levels are main-
tained, the aquifer will be monitored at
those wells where pumping has ceased
on an occurrence of every years
following discontinuation of ground water
extraction.
The following suggested language de-
scribes the recommended contingency
measures and is also presented in the
Selected Remedy section of the ROD:
If it is determined, on the basis of the
preceding criteria and the system perfor-
mance data, that certain portions of the
aquifer cannot be restored to theirbenefi-
cial use, all of the following measures
involving long-term management may oc-
cur, for an indefinite period of time, as a
modification of the existing system:
Engineering controls such as physi-
cal barriers or long-term gradient
control provided by low level pump-
ing, will be implemented as contain-
ment measures;
Chemical-specific ARARs will be
waived for the cleanup of those por-
tions of the aquifer based on the
technical impracticability of achiev-
ing further contaminant reduction
• Institutional control will be provided
and maintained to restrict access to
those portions of the aquifer that
remain above remediation levels
Monitoring of specified wells will
continue
Remedial technologies for ground
water restoration will be reevalu-
ated periodically
The decision to invoke any or all of these
measures may be made during a peri-
odic review of the remedial action, which
will occur at year intervals < at least
every five years, in accordance with
CERCLA Section 121 (c) >.
When acontingency remedy is presented
in the ROD (in the Remedy Selection
section, the following Supporting Lan-
guage to the contingency measures
should be included in the Comparative
Analysis of Alternatives section of the
ROD:
• That both the primary remedy and
the contingency measures provide
overall protection of human health
and the environment, either by re-
ducing contaminants to MCLs/
MCLGs or other remediation levels,
or through a combination of mass
reduction, institutional and/or engi-
neering controls
That chemical-specific ARARs will
either be attained or waived
Interim Action
(Moderate to Substantial Uncertainty, or Early Action Containment Measures)
An interim action ROD should include
the following type of language in the
Selected Remedy section of the ROD:
This alternative calls for the design and
implementation of an interim remedial
action to protect human health and the
environment. Thegoal(s) of this reme-
dial action is (are) to (specify interim
goals, e.g., halt the spread of a con-
taminant plume, remove contaminant
mass, etc.) and to collect data on aquifer
and contaminant response to remediation
measures. The ultimate level ofremediation
to be attained will be determined in a final
remedial action for this site. This remedial
action will be monitored carefully to deter-
mine the feasibility of achieving this level
with this method and to ensure that hy-
draulic control of the contaminated plume
is maintained. After the period of time
necessary, in EPA's judgment, to ar-
rive at a final decision for the site, a
final ROD for ground water, which
specifies the ultimate goal, remedy,
and anticipated time-frame, will be
prepared. Upon completion of the Rl/
FS, this interim system may be incor-
porated into the design of the site rem-
edy specified in the final action ROD.
-------
Twenty-Second Remedy
Delegation Report
The Twenty-Second Remedy Delegation
Report memorandum was signed on De-
cember 27, 1990, by Don R. Clay, Assis-
tant Administrator, OSWER. This memo-
randum delegated selection of remedy
authority for all Superfund Records of De-
cision (RODs) scheduled for signature
during FY1991 that were listed in CERCLIS
as of December 8, 1990, and targeted for
completion. The memorandum also pro-
vided information concerning the types of
sites that will require consultation, the
anticipated level of consultation, and the
role of the Headquarters Regional Coor-
dinator (RC) in this process. The consulta-
tion process applies to Enforcement, Fund,
State and Federal Facility lead RODs,
ROD Amendments, and Explanations of
Significant Differences (ESDs).
If a Region needs a ROD delegation for a
site not included on CERCLIS as of De-
cember 8, 1990, a memorandum ad-
dressed to Don R. Clay, Assistant Admin-
istrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emer-
gency Response, requesting delegation
of additional RODs and briefing sheets for
each site will be required. Early submittal
of such a memorandum to headquarters is
encouraged because the delegation pro-
cess may take two to three weeks to
complete. A final memorandum from the
Assistant Administrator to the Regional
Administrator completes the delegation
process.
DELEGATION AUTHORIZATION
EPA Delegation of Authority 14-5 autho-
rizes delegation of remedy selection de-
cisions to the Regional Administrators
(RAs). Procedures for delegation of rem-
edy selection decisions to the RAs are
outlined in OSWER Directive 9260.1-9,
March 24, 1986. Remedy selection au-
thority may be re-delegated to the Deputy
Regional Administrator at the discretion of
the Regional Administrator.
CONSULTATION
Formal consultations with Headquarters
are generally required where the proposed
remedial action may be costly; utilizes
waivers; or involves real property acqui-
sitions, national precedent-setting issues,
ROD amendments as a result of PRP
settlements, all ESDs, and containment-
only remedies. Consultations will occur
before the Proposed Plan, amended Pro-
posed Plan, or ESD is issued.
Consultation for containment-only rem-
edies is a new consultation criterion for
FY 1991 and is based on a result of the
study entitled "A Comparative Analyses of
Remedies Selected in the Superfund Pro-
gram During FY87, FY88, and FY89,"
OSWER Directive 9835. 1 3, June 20, 1 990.
This report was drafted by OWPE and
OERR in response to the request made
from Senators Lautenberg and
Durenberger. Specific procedures for
consultation on containment-only rem-
edies are given in Directive 9835. 13-1 a,
October 2, 1990. Additional consultation
criteria including State nonconcurrence
issues, contingency remedies, and Natu-
ral Resource Trustee concerns also have
been added to address ROD quality, time-
liness, and enforcement concerns.
Regional consultation will be conducted at
the Assistant Administrator, respective
Office Director, Headquarters Division
Director, or Branch Chief level, depending
on the type of issue(s) involved and the
degree of concern associated with the
issue(s), on a case-by-case basis. The
following guidelines identify the types of
remedy issues which warrant consultation
and the appropriate level of consultation:
Assistant Administrator:
Exceeds $60 million
Involves (or potentially involves) a
fund balancing waiver [SARA
Office Director-
Exceeds $30 million
Real property acquisition for a fund-
financed response
National precedent-setting issues
Complex multisource ground water
contamination
ROD amendment resulting from PRP
settlement/negotiations
Division Director:
Containment-only remedies
State nonconcurrence issues
ROD reopener
Contingency remedies (Note: Con-
sultation is not needed for ground
water contingency remedies that use
standard ground water language
guidance.)
Branch Chief;
Explanation of Significant Difference
Remedy does not satisfy Natural Re-
source Trustee concerns
The consultation process applies to En-
forcement, Fund, State and Federal Facil-
ity lead RODs, ROD Amendments, and
Explanations of Significant Differences
(ESDs). OWPE has lead responsibility for
the consultation and assistance for Fed-
eral Facility response actions.
In addition to the consultations identified
above, Regions are encouraged to dis-
cuss unresolved issues relating to an
ARAR waiver or potential waiver, risk as-
sessment, and new policy issues with the
appropriate Headquarters Branch Chief.
The Headquarters Regional Coordinator
should be involved early in the remedial
process for issue resolution as an integral
part of their role in assisting in the con-
sultation process.
Administrative questions concerning del-
egations should be directed to Carol
Jacobson (703/308-8369 or FTS 398-
8369) in the Hazardous Site Control Divi-
sion, or Lance Elson (703/308-5617 or
FTS 398-5617) in the CERCLA Enforce-
ment Division.
Administrative Record
Final Guidance on Administrative Records
for Selecting CERCLA Response Actions,
OSWER Directive # 9833.3A-1, was re-
leased on December 3, 1990. The guid-
ance sets forth the policy and procedures
governing the compilation and establish-
ment of administrative records for select-
ing response actions under CERCLA as
amended by SARA. The guidance is
consistent with and expands on Subpart I
of the National Oil and Hazardous Sub-
stances Pollution Contingency Plan, 55
FR 8859, of March 8, 1990.
The Directive includes detailed information
concerning purpose and scope of the ad-
ministrative record, procedures for estab-
lishing the administrative record, contents
of the administrative record, involvement
of other parties, a series of appendices
that provide examples of various key
documents, and the preamble to Subpart
I and Subpart I of the NCP.
BACKGROUND
The administrative record established
under Section 113(k) of CERCLA serves
two primary purposes. First, the record
contains those documents tha* form the
basis for selecting a response action; and
under Section 113(j), judicial review of any
issue concerning the adequacy of any
-------
response action is limited to the record.
Second, Section 113(k) requires that the
administrative record act as a vehicle for
public participation in selecting a response
action.
The administrative record is the body of
documents thatforms the basis for select-
ing a particular response at a site. Docu-
ments that are included are relevant
documents that were relied on to select
the response action, as well as relevant
documents that were considered but ulti-
mately rejected.
The following principles should be applied
in establishing administrative records:
The record should be compiled as
documents relating to the selection of
the response action are generated or
received by the lead agency
The record should includedocuments
that form the basis for the decision,
whether or not they support the re-
sponse selection
The record should be a contempora-
neous explanation of the basis forthe
selection of a response action.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Section 113(j)(1) of CERCLA provides
that judicial review of any issues con-
cerning the adequacy of any response
act ion shall be limited to the administrative
record. Judicial review based on an ad-
ministrative record provides numerous
benefits. Under Section 113(j) of CERCLA
and general principles of administrative
law, when the trial court reviews the re-
sponse action selected, the court is limited
to reviewing the documents in the ad-
ministrative record. As a result, facts or
arguments related to the response action
that challenging parties present for the
first time in court will not be considered.
Record review saves time by limiting the
scope of trials, thereby saving the lead
agency's resources for cleanup ratherthan
litigation.
In ruling on challenges to the response
action decision, the court will apply the
"arbitrary and capricious" standard of re-
view set forth in Section 113 (j)(2) of
CERCLA. Under this standard, a court
does not substitute its judgment for that of
the decisionmaker. The reviewing court
does not act as an independent
decisionmaker, but rather acts as a re-
viewing body whose limited task is tocheck
for arbitrary and capricious action. Thus,
the court will overturn the response selec-
tion decision only if rt can be shown on the
administrative recordthatthedecision was
arbitrary and capricious orotherwise not in
accordance with the law. The extent to
which EPA benefits from having judicial
review limited to the record depends on
the quality and completeness of each
record.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Section 113(k)(2)of CERCLA requires that
the public have the opportunity to partici-
pate in developing the administrative record
for response selection. Section 117 also
includes provisions for public participation
in the remedial action selection process.
Both sections reflect a statutory emphasis
on public participation. Participation by
interested persons will ensure that the
lead agency has considered the concerns
of the public, including PRPs, during the
response selection process. In addition,
for purposes of administrative and judicial
review, the record will contain documents
that reflect the participation of the public
and the lead agency's consideration of the
public's concern.
If the lead agency does not provide an
opportunity for involvement of interested
parties in the development of the adminis-
trative record, persons challenging a re-
sponse action may argue that judicial re-
view should not be limited to the record.
The lead agency must, therefore, make
the information considered or relied on in
selecting a response action available to
the public, provide an appropriate oppor-
tunity for public comment on this informa-
tion, place comments and information re-
ceived from the public in the record, and
reflect in the record the lead agency's
consideration of this information.
Questions concerning the Administrative
Record should be directed to Gary
Worthman (202/382-5646 or FTS
382-5646) in the Office of Waste Pro-
grams Enforcement.
For ideas, submissions, or questions concerning the ROD Update, please contact Carol Bass 202/475-9752. Members of the
public may obtain copies by contacting the EPA Superfund Document Center (OS-240), 401 M. St., S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
Please use fax number 202/245-4386 or E-mail Box 5248 OERR/PUBS or send a written request to ensure that your order is
expedited.
-------
United States
Evironmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$3°° MS. LOU Tilley
Region v Library
FT . <5 PT-.A -<
First-Class Mail
Postage and Fees Paic
EPA
Permit No. Q-35
U.S.
street-
------- |