oEPA
United State*
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ic« of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
TITLE:
9355.0-21
Additional Interim Guidance tor FY'87|
Records of Decision
APPROVAL DATE: July 24, 1987
EFFECTIVE DATE: Juiy 24, 1987
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OERR/HSCD
SPINAL
G DRAFT
STATUS:
U.S. E.P.A. Region in
Information Resource Center
REFERENCE (other documents):
Supplements 9355.0-19
OS WER OS WER OS WER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
vV ASHING TON, D.C. 20460
JUi.241987
OFF-OEOF
MEMORANDUM SOLO WASTE 6.va'jM^cE.«ic.- IESPM
SUBJECT: Additional Interim Guidance for FY1 87 Records of
Decision J ' £- —
L, "--- /*• ' '
PROM: . J. winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
TO: Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, and VIII
Director, Air and Wast3 Management Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions £11 and VI
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
There are a large number of Records of Decision (RODs)
to be signed by the Regions in the near term. This interim
guidance memorandum is meant to assist you with making and
documenting these decisions.
Records of Decision in FY'87 are governed by the current
National Contingency Plan (NCP) promulgated November 20, 1985
and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
This memorandum supplements the "Interim Guidance on Superfund
Selection of Remedy" issued December 24, 1986 which was an
early effort to explain how SARA modifies the processes and
procedures established in the NCP. Pending revisions to the
NCP and the guidances on "Remedial Investigations (RI),"
"Feasibility Studies (FS)," and "Preparation of Decision
.Documents (ROD Guidance)" planned for next fiscal year, Regions
should follow this and the previous guidance memorandum to the
extent practicable.
In brief, the remedy selection process consists of the
collection of data on site and waste characteristics and the
analysis of alternative approaches for remediating identified
problems. The results of the analysis are then assembled to
assist decisionmakers in determining what remedy is most
appropriate for a given site. The remedy selection occurs in
two steps: first, a proposed plan is issued with the RI/FS for
public comment; based upon consideration of the comments and any
new information received, the Agency then makes a final remedy
selection which is explained in a Record of Decision.
-------
-2- 93550-21
• In both the Proposed Plan and Record of Decision it is
important to discuss and compare the alternatives in terms
of specific evaluation criteria. Attachment #1 lists some of
the most important criteria that should be considered in this
analysis. As indicated, many of the criteria are specifically
mandated by SARA; others derive from the current NCP and existing
RI/FS and ROD guidances. Suggested component measures of each
criteria are listed, although different measures may be more
or less appropriate for an individual site.
The evaluation criteria will also be referenced in explaining
the rationale for selecting the chosen alternative in the Record
of Decision. The RODs must also make four statutory findings
about the selected remedy:
1. That the remedy is protective of human health and the
environment;
2. That the remedy attains the legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements of other Federal
and State public health or environmental laws, or
provides the grounds for invoking one of the six waivers
provided for in SARA;
3. That the remedy is cost-effective; and
4. That the remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternating
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies
to the maximum extent practicable.
Additionally, the ROD should explain whether or not the remedy
satisfies the stat'utory preference for remedies which employ
treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the
toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous substances as their
principal element. To promote consistency in how this documentation
is organized, Attachment #2 provides an outline of the various
components of ROD and their suggested sequence. A more detailed
version of this proposed outline will be presented in the
aforementioned ROD Guidance due out this fall.
It is hoped that this guidance will help you focus on the
considerations which are most significant for the preparation of ,
RODs this fiscal year. Recognizing that some projects are near
completion, you will need to determine the extent to which
these considerations can be incorporated into decision documents
not yet signed on a case by case basis. Some key remedy selection
issues are still under discussion and will be resolved through
the process of finalizing proposed revisions to the NCP.
Attachments
-------
ATTACHMENT $1 9355.0-21
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES
Listed below are the key criteria which should be considered
in evaluating and comparing alternatives. Those criteria which
relate directly to the factors SARA §121(b)(l)(A - G) mandates
the Agency to assess are marked. A key listing the associated
statutory factors is provided. Records of Decision must address
these statutory factors; this can be accomplished by referencing
or footnoting the factors in summarizing the analysis of alter-
natives against the nine criteria below.
1. Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives should be assessed as to whether they attain
legally applicable or relevant arid appropriate requirements
of other Federal and State environmental and public health
laws, including, as appropriate:
0 Contaminant-specific ARARs (e.g., MCLs, NAAQs)8
0 Location-specific ARARs (e.g., restrictions on
actions at historic preservation sites)8
8 Action-specific ARARs (e.g., RCRA requirements
for incineration and closure)8
SARA provides six waivers for situations where not all
ARARs can be met in §121(d)(4). Use of waivers must be
justified in the ROD.
2. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume
The degree to which alternatives employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume should be assessed.
Factors that might be relevant include:
* The treatment processes the remedies employ and
materials they will treat;
0 The amount of hazardous materials that will be
destroyed or treated;
8 The degree of expected reduction in toxicity, mobility
or volume;3
0 The degree to -/hich the treatment is irreversible;
8 The residuals that will remain following treatment,
considering the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and
propensity to bioaccumulate of such hazardous substances
and their constituents.c
-------
-2- 9355.0-21
3. ShTt-Term Effectiveness
The short-term effectiveness of alternatives should be
assessed considering appropriate factors among the following:
* Magnitude of reduction of existing risks;
0 Short-term risks that might be posed to the community,
workers, or the environment during implementation
of an alternative including potential threats to human
health and the environment associated with excavation,
transportation, and redisposal or containment;D,G
e Time until full protection is achieved.
4. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives should be assessed for the long-term effectiveness
and permanence they afford along with the degree of certainty
that the remedy will prove successful. Factors which might be
considered ares
0 Magnitude of residual risks in terms of amounts
and concentrations of waste remaining following
implementation of a remedial action, considering
the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity
to bioaccumulate of such hazardous substances and
their constituents;A'B/C,G
8 Type and degree of long-term management required,
including monitoring and operation and maintenance;^»^/G
0 Potential for exposure of human and environmental
receptors to remaining waste considering the potential
threat to human health and the environment associated
with excavation, transportation, redisposal, or contain-
ment ;D,G
0 Long-term reliability of the engineering and
institutional controls, including uncertainties
associated with land disposal of untreated wastes
and residua Is;A»&>^/G
" Potential need for replacement of the remedy.F
5. Implementability
The ease or difficulty of implementing the alternatives
can be assessed by considering the following types of
factors:
-------
-3- 9355.0-21
"^Degree of difficulty associated with constructing the
«technology;
0 Expected operational reliability of the technologies;
e Need to coordinate with and obtain necessary approvals
and permits (e.g., NPDES, Dredge and Fill Permits
for off-site actions) from other offices and agencies;
0 Availability of necessary equipment and specialists;
' Available capacity and location of needed treatment,
storage, and disposal services.
0 Need to respond to other sites (§104 actions only).
6. Cost
The types of costs that should be assessed include the following:
0 Capital costs;
0 Operation and maintenance costs;E
0 Costs of five year reviews, where required;
* Net present value of captial and 0 & M costs;E
0 Potential future remedial action costs.F
7. Community Acceptance
Clearly, a full assessment of community attitudes toward
the alternatives cannot be made until the formal public
comment period on the proposed plan and RI/FS has been
held. Earlier readings of community acceptance of and
preferences among the alternatives will depend on the
degree and type of community involvement, in a project
during the RI/FS process. This assessment should look at:
* Components of the alternatives that the community
supports;
0 Features of the alternatives about which the community
has reservations;
8 Elements of the alternatives which the community strongly
opposes. .
-------
-4- 9355.0-21
8. State Acceptance
States are joint risk managers with.EPA in the Superfund
process, often taking the lead for remedial investigations
and feasibility studies, sharing costs of the remedial
actions, and paying for the operation and maintenance of
the remedies. Because of close interaction throughout
remedial projects, it may not be necessary to address
State concerns with proposed alternatives as a specific
evaluation criterion when comparing alternatives. In some
cases, however, it may be appropriate to consider incorporating
such concerns into the evaluation with regard to:
* Components of the alternatives the State supports;
0 Features of the alternatives about which the State
has reservations;
0 Elements of the alternatives under consideration
that the State strongly opposes.
9. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Following the analysis of remedial options against individual
evaluation criteria, the alternatives should be assessed
from the standpoint of whether they provide adequate protection
of human health and the environment considering the multiple
criteria.
-------
KEY
(S*ttoni2l(bXl)(A.G)F,ctors)
- »• associate* *
tong-term maintenance costs
-------
ATTACHMENT '2
. SUGGESTED OUTLINE FOR RECORDS OF DECISION-
I. DECLARATION
A. Site Name and Location
8. Statement of Basis and Purpose (attach Index to
Administrative Record)
C. Description of the Selected Remedy
D. Declarations of consistency with CERCLA as amended by
SARA and the NCP (attach letter of State concurrence)
II. DECISION SUMMARY
A. Site Name, Location and Description
B. Site History
C. Enforcement History
D. Community Relations History
* E. Alternatives Evaluation
** F. Selected Remedy (Description and -ationale for selection)
III. Responsiveness Summary
A. Overview
B. Background on Community Involvement
C. Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses
D. Explanation of Differences Between Proposed Plan
and Selected Remedy (if appropriate)
E. Remaining Concerns
F. Attachment listing community relations activities
conducted at the site prior to and ijring the public
comment period.
* Denotes section where analysis of alternatives against evaluation
criteria will be documented (See Attachment 42)..
**
Indicates section where statutory findings will be discussed.
------- |