DRAFT
                  GUIDANCE ON PREPARING
           SUPERFUND DECISION DOCUMENTS:

   THE PROPOSED PLAN AND RECORD OF DECISION
         This  guidance  was  produced  to  assist  Regional, State,
         and  Headquarters   personnel   in  developing  decision
         documents   for  final   remedial  actions  at  CERCLA
         sites.    The  process  for developing and  documenting
         final  remedial  actions at Superfund  sites  is reflective,
         to  the  extent  possible,  of   the   revisions  currently
         being  made  to  the  National  Contingency  Plan (NCP).
         This  guidance,  however,  does   not  currently  address
         decision  documents   for  non-final  remedial   actions.
         which are  part of  the  current  revisions  to  the  NCP.
         Decision   documents  for  non-final  actions   will  be
         addressed  through  a  separate  guidance  document  or
         will  be  incorporated  into  the  forthcoming   revisions
         to this guidance.
                            Review Draft
                             March 1988
              Office of Emergency and Remedial Response

                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                       Washington, D.C.  20460
  Thi» review drift u intended for internal »ftncr review only. It ha* not been formally nleeeid by th*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and ihould not at thia stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                         OSWER  Directive  9355.3-02
                                      NOTICE
                 The  information in this  document  has been
                 funded,  wholly  or in part,  by the United
                 States Environmental Protection Agency
                 under Contract  No. 	 with ICF
                 Incorporated.    It has been subject to the
                 Agency's peer and administrative  review and
                 has  been approved for publication as an EPA
                 document.
                                        11
This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                      OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                              ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    This guidance was developed through the joint  effort of the ROD
    workgroup, of which  the  following Regional, State  and Headquarters
    personnel were members:
    Mary Gade, Co-Chairperson,  Region V
    Darsi Foss, Co-Chairperson,  Office of Emergency  and Remedial
        Response (OERR)
    Jeremy Firestone, Region I
    Bill Walsh-Rogalski, Region I
    Robert McKnight, Region  II
    Beverly Houston, Region  IV
    Larry Kyte, Region V
    Joan Calabrese, Region V
    Mary Pat Tyson, Region V
    Laura demons, Region VIII
    John Blevins, Region IX
    John Rendall, Region IX
    Gary Pulford, State of Minnesota
    Bob Chapin, State of Texas
    Ed Putnam, State of New  Jersey
    Betsy Shaw, OERR
    Sylvia Malm, OERR
    Vanessa Musgrave, OERR
    Debra Wolpe, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement  (OWPE)
    Tony Diecidue, OWPE
    Ellen Spitalnik, Office  of  Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
    Joe Freedman, Office of  General Counsel
   .Steve Nicholas,. Office o.f Policy,  Planning_ajid Evaluation
                                     iii
This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                       OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                               Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1:   Introduction 	  	

             1.1   Purpose of Guidance  	  	

CHAPTER 2:   The  Proposed Plan. ."	

             2.1   Purpose of the Proposed Plan	
             2.2   Writing the Proposed Plan	 .   .

                  2.2.1  Statement of Document's  Purpose.  .  .   . .
                  2.2.2  Site Description ...  	
                  2.2.3  Scope and Role of Operable  Unit or
                         Response Action. .  .  ;  	
                  2.2.4  Alternatives from the Detailed Analysis
                         in FS.	
                  2.2.5  The Preferred Alternative	
                  2.2.6  Role of Community in Process  	

          .   2.3   Formats for the Proposed Plan  ....  	

                  2.3.1  Fact Sheet Format	
                  2.3.2  Stand-Alone Document  	

CHAPTER 3:   The  Process for Developing the  Proposed Plan 	

             3.1   Overview	
             3.2   Roles and Responsibilities of  the  Lead Agency
                  and Support Agency		

                  3.2.1  Designation of Roles and Responsibilities.
                  3.2.2  Managerial Review of the Proposed Plan .   ,
                  3.2.3  Support Agency Comment  Period	
                  3.2.4  .Response to Support Agency  Comments.   . .   .

             3.3   Procedures for Resolving Disputes  .  .  	
             3.4   Role of Other Federal Entities	

CHAPTER 4:   The  Newspaper Notification and  Public Comment Period  ,

             4.1   Statutory Requirements	
             4.2   Writing the Newspaper Notification	

                  4.2.1  Section-by-Section  Description of the
                         Newspaper Notification	   . .   ,

             4.3   Public Comment Period	-.   ,
1-1

1-1

2-1

2-1
2-3

2-3
2-6

2-6

2-6
2-6
2-8

2-8

2-9
2-9

3-1

3-1

3-2

3-2
3-3
3-4
3-4

3-4
3-5

4-1

4-1
4-1


4-2

4-4
                                       iv
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only. It baa not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage  be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                       OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
CHAPTER 5:  Pre-ROD  Significant'Changes	      5-1

            5.1   Overview	      5-1
            5.2   Requirement to Address Changes   	   5-1
            5.3   Identifying Categories of Changes  	      5-2

                  5.3.1   Non-Significant Changes	;      5-2
                  5.3.2   Significant Changes	      5-4

            5.4   Criteria for Analyzing Significant Changes	      5-4

                  5.4.1   Significant Changes that may be  a
                         Logical Outgrowth of the Information
                         Available to the Public.-	      5-4
                  5.4.2   Significant Changes that may not be  a
                         Logical Outgrowth of the Information
                         Available to the Public. ..........      5-5

            5.5   Examples of Pre-ROD Changes 	      5-6

CHAPTER 6:  The Record  of Decision	      6-1

            6.1   Purpose of the ROD	 .      6-1

            6.2   Key Elements of the Declaration	      6-2

                  6.2.1   Site Name and Location	      6-2
                  6.2.2   Statement of Basis and Purpose	      6-2
                  6.2.3   Description of the Selected Remedy	      6-3
                  6.2.4   Declaration Statement	      6-3
                  6.2.5   Signature and State Concurrence   	      6-5

            6.3   Key Elements of the Decision Summary	      6-5

                  6.3.1   Site Name,  Location,  and Description ....      6-6
                  6.3.2   Site History and Enforcement Activities.  . .      6-6
                  6.3.3   Community Relations  .   . .	      6-7
                  6.3.4   Scope and Role of Operable Unit  or
                         Response Action.	      6-7
                  6.3.5   Site Characteristics	      6-7
                  6.3.6   Summary of Site Risks.	      6-8
                  6.3.7   Documentation of Significant Changes
                         (§117(b))	      6-8
                  6.3.8   Description of Alternatives	      6-9
                  6.3.9   Summary of the Comparative Analysis
                         of Alternatives	     6-10
                  6.3.10 The Selected Remedy	     6-11
                  6.3.11 Statutory Determinations	     6-11

            6.4   The Responsiveness Summary  	     6-14
  This review draft is intended for-internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                        OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
CHAPTER  7:   The Process for Developing the Record of Decision.

             7.1  Roles and Responsibilities of Lead Agency
                  and Support Agency	

                  7.1.1  Lead Agency.	
                  7.1.2  Support  Agency 	

             7.2  Selecting the Remedy and Signing the ROD. .   .
             7.3  Dispute Resolution	
             7.4  Role of Other EPA and State Program Offices  .
             7.5  Roles and Responsibilities of Other Federal
                  Entities	

CHAPTER  8:   Post-ROD Significant Changes 	  . .   .

             8.1  Overview. .  .  	
             8.2  Requirement to  Address Changes	
             8.3  Categories of Post-ROD Changes	

                  8.3.1  Non-Significant Differences.  .  .  . .   .
                  8.3.2  Significant Differences to  a Component
                         of a Remedy	
                  8.3.3  Fundamental Differences that Require
                         Amendment of the ROD 	

             8.4  Examples of Significant Differences 	
7-1


7-1

7-1
7-2

7-2
7-3
7-3

7-4

8-1

8-1
8-2
8-2

8-2

8-4

8-5

8-6
                                       vi
  This review draft ia intended for internal agency review only. • It has not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                          OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                LIST OF APPENDICES


APPENDIX A  Sample Proposed Plan in Fact Sheet  Format

APPENDIX B  The  Evaluation  Criteria

APPENDIX C  Outline of the  Declaration  for the  Record of Decision

APPENDIX D  Sample Declaration for the  Record of Decision

APPENDIX E  Outline of the  ROD Decision Summary

APPENDIX F  Sample Maps and Tables for  the Record of Decision

APPENDIX G  Additional Sources of Information
                                        vii
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It baa not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                 INTRODUCTION
1.1  PiiT*n«se of
     The "Guidance on  Preparing Superfund Decision Documents"  (the ROD
guidance), is intended to  assist personnel in the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), State  environmental agencies, and other Federal
agencies prepare, review,  and defend the Proposed Plan and the Record of
Decision (ROD) .  The Proposed Plan and ROD are two of the key documents in  the
remedy selection process under  the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability  Act of 1980 (CERCLA) , as amended.1  These decision
documents are required for all  final remedial actions .taken pursuant to CERCLA
§§104, 106, 120 or 122.

     Presently, the ROD guidance addresses only Proposed Plans and Records  of
Decision that pertain  to final  remedial actions taken pursuant to §§104,  106,
120, and 122 of CERCLA.  Final  remedial actions are those CERCLA actions  that
constitute a final response  for an entire site, portion of a site, or a
contaminant pathway (i.e., operable units).   Non- final remedial actions such
as an alternate water  supply, a temporary cap, or removal of drums also will
be documented in a decision  document.   Guidance on preparing decision
documents for non- final remedial actions is currently being developed by  the
Agency.  In the interim, Regional Coordinators in Headquarters should be
contacted for guidance on  how to document non- final remedial actions.

     This guidance addresses information to be used in selecting a Superfund
remedy and the processes for documenting these selections .   This guidance ,
however, does not discuss  how to conduct the decision-making activities at
critical decision points in  the remedy selection process.  Preparation of the
Proposed Plan and ROD,  as  outlined in this guidance, will rely to a great
extent on the information  collected and analyzed during the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility  Study (RI/FS) process.  Separate guidance has been
prepared to address this earlier phase of the remedy selection process:
"Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies  under
CERCLA" (OSWER Directive 9355.3-01).  The ROD guidance and RI/FS guidance are
interrelated documents that  should be used by EPA, State, and Federal agency
personnel when conducting  remedial actions pursuant to §§104, 106, 120, and
122 of CERCLA.
     1  References made  to  CERCLA throughout this document should be
interpreted as meaning  "CERCLA,  as amended by the Superfund Amendments  and
Reauthorization Act  (SARA)  of 1986."
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by tha
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      1-2
     This  guidance  supercedes the February 27, 1985 memorandum:  "Preparation
of Decision Documents  for Approving Fund-Financed and Potentially Responsible
Party Remedial Actions under CERCLA."  The purpose of this revised edition of
the ROD guidance  is  two-fold:  to address the statutory changes brought about
by the Superfund  Amendments  and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and to incorporate
into the remedial process documentation procedures developed over several
years of program  experience.   One of the key additions to this guidance is the
§117 requirement  that  the Federal or State government agency acting as the
lead for site remediation activities issue a Proposed Plan identifying the
lead agency's preferred alternative for remediating the site.  The Proposed
Plan provides a brief  summary of the alternatives, studied in the detailed
analysis phase of the  RI/FS,  highlighting the key factors that led to the
identification of the  preferred alternative.   Two chapters of this guidance
provide specific  information on the process of developing the Proposed Plan
and guidance on writing the  Proposed Plan.

     The revisions to  the ROD guidance also reflect the new statutory emphasis
on "providing for substantial and meaningful involvement of each State in the
initiation, development,  and selection of remedial response actions to be
undertaken in that State," as specified in §121(f)(l) of CERCLA.  Because
States may be either the lead agency or support agency for remedial
activities, the ROD guidance has been revised to reflect the enhanced
partnership between the EPA  and the States in the preparation of the Proposed
Plan and the ROD.  This guidance,  therefore,  often makes general reference to
"lead" and "support" agency  responsibilities,  rather than EPA or State
responsibilities.

     Federal agencies  conducting CERCLA response actions pursuant to §120 are
expected to comply with this  and other Agency guidance,  as specified in §120
of CERCLA.  Although this guidance was written with a bias towards the process
of 'communication  and coordination between the EPA and States, a Federal agency
should assume the roles and  responsibilities of the lead agency as specified
in.this guidance.  This includes the responsibility for coordinating and
communicating with the EPA,  and where designated, the State, in their
respective roles  as support  agencies.   The activities related to preparing the
Proposed Plan and ROD  should be specified in an Interagency Agreement (IAG),
taking into consideration the process and activities outlined in this
guidance, CERCLA, and  the NCP.   Further guidance on the role of Federal
facilities in the remedy selection process is being prepared by the Agency.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at thi< atage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                               THE PROPOSED PLAN
     The purpose of  the Proposed Flan and the statutory requirements for
issuing the Plan are presented in this chapter.  In addition, a suggested
outline for the Plan and  guidelines  on how to write the Proposed Plan are
discussed.  Finally, two  formats in  which the Plan may be released are
described.

2.1  Purpose of the  Proposed Plan

     The purpose of  the Proposed Plan is to highlight the RI/FS rep.ort,
provide a brief analysis  of  remedial alternatives under consideration for a
site or operable unit, identity the  preferred alternative. and to provide the
pub_lic with information on how they  can participate in the remedy selection
process.  The Proposed Plan,  therefore,  performs a different function in the
remedy selection process  than the RI/FS report.  Although the Proposed Plan
may be the subject: of enhanced public interest, the RI/FS report remains the
primary document for providing detailed information to the public on the
alternatives analyzed.

     The Proposed Plan does  not identify the final remedial action plan for
the site or operable unit.   The Proposed Plan should state clearly that the
lead agency has identified a preferred alternative based on the available
information but has  not made a final decision on what remedy to implement.
This final decision  will  be  made in  the ROD after the lead agency has.taken
into consideration the public's comments and any new and significant
information presented.  The  Proposed Plan, therefore, should clearly state
that changes to the  preferred alternative or a change from the preferred
alternative to another alternative may be made if public comments or
additional data indicate  that modifications to the preferred alternative or a
different remedy would better achieve the cleanup goals for the site.  For
this reason, an important function of the Proposed Plan is to elicit public
comment on all the alternatives considered in the detailed analysis phase of
the RI/FS.  The Proposed  Plan should include observations and tentative
recommendations, not definitive findings or declarative statements that would
be difficult to reverse later.

     Statutory Requirements

     Three statutory requirements in CERCLA provide the basic framework for
determining the key  elements of the  Proposed Plan and the process for
developing the document.  These are  §§113(k)(2)(^), il7
-------
                                                      OSWER Directive 9355.3-02

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Section  121(f)(l)  specifies the minimum involvement the EPA must afford
the State in  the  remedial  decision process when it is the support  agency  at  a
site.  The requirements specific to the Proposed Plan are to provide:

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

     When EPA is  the support agency,  the State must follow the above
procedures by providing EPA with an opportunity to review and comment on  the
Proposed Plan and other alternatives,  by responding to EPA comments, and  by
providing EPA with a copy of those responses.  When a Federal agency is the
  This review draft la intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by th«
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      2-3
lead agency,  it must  follow the above procedures for all support  agencies
(i.e., EPA and a  State).
2.2  Writing *^g  Proposed Plan

     The intent of  the  Proposed Plan is to summarize key information from the
RI/FS report.  At a minimum,  the Plan should:

     •  Provide a summary description of the remedial alternatives
        evaluated in the  detailed analysis phase of the RI/FS report;

     •  Identify  the lead agency's preferred alternative;

     •  Provide a summary of  the support agency comments ;

     •  Provide a summary explanation of any proposed waivers to  the
        cleanup standards (CERCLA 121 (d) (4)); and

     •  Provide a summary description of the rationale that supports the
        preferred alternative,  discussed in terms of the nine evaluation
                  defined  in Appendix B of this guidance.
     Exhibit 2-1 provides  a recommended outline for preparing the  Proposed
Plan.  It contains elements that are specifically required by CERCLA,  as  well
as fhaaa ragpqnqended  for inclusion.   The list is not all-inclusive;  variations
can be made as appropriate.  The following subsections provide more  specific
guidance on the key elements of the  Plan.  A sample Proposed Plan  is presented
in Appendix A of this guidance.

Key Elements of the Proposed Pl*»n

     2.2.1
     This section should state that the Proposed Plan is a document  that the
lead agency is required to_issue to fulfill §117 (a) of CERCLA.  The  public
should be informed of  the purpose of the Proposed Plan and its  role  in the
remedy selection process.   This section should state that the purposes of the
Proposed Plan are to:   (1) identify: the preJ&rjEej£_^Jj:.ejiative and  the  reasons
for that preference; (2)  describe briefly the_aJLternatives detailed  in the
RI/FS report; and (3)  solicit public reviewand comment on all  alternatives
set forth .in the detailed analysis section of the FS.

     A c lear s tateaent should be made that the groppsed Plan JiighLights^key
                            report .   The Plan should refer the reader to the""
RI/FS report and administrative record as more complete sources of  information
on the site.  This  section should convey that public ingut on all
alternatives, and on the information that supports the alternatives,  is an
important contribution to the remedial decision-Baking process.  The  public
should be encouraged to comment and be informed that comments can modify the
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by tha
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                     OSWER'Directive 9355.3-02

                                     2-4
                                 EXHIBIT 2-1

                       OUTLINE FDR THE PROPOSED PLAN
  Statenent of Document's Purpose

      -   Fulfills requirements of section 117(a)
      -   Describes alternatives- analyzed
         Identifies preferred alternative and explains rationale  for
         preference
         Serves as companion to the RI/FS and administrative record
         Solicits community involvement in selection of a remedy

  Site Description

      -   Site Name
         Location
         Summary of site history  and problems to be addressed
         Identification of lead and support agencies

  Scope  and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action

         Summarize scope of problem the action will address
      -   Describe role of action  within site strategy

  Alternatives Analyzed

         Briefly describe alternatives  evaluated in detailed analysis  of
         FS,  including estimated  cost and implementation time*

  The  Preferred Alternative              -        -....'

         -  Identify the preferred alternative
         -  Introduce the nine evaluation criteria:
           •  overall protection  of human health and the
              environment;
              compliance with ARARs;
              long-term effectiveness and permanence;
              reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume;
              short-term effectiveness;
              implementability;
              cost-;                                       -  -
              -state  [or support agency] acceptance; and  .   -
              community acceptance


   •   Denotes components required by statute -for inclusion in the Proposed
      Plan.
This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not  at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                       OStfER Directive 9355.3-02

                                       2-5



                                   EXHIBIT 2-1

                         OUTLINE FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN
                                   (Continued)
           -  Provide rationale for  preferred alternative  by highlighting
             the tradeoffs among  the  alternatives with  respect to the
             nine criteria.
           -  State lead agency's  belief that the "preferred alternative meets
             the statutory findings

       Role  of Community-*- in Process

           -  Notice of public comment period (written comments are encouraged)*
           -  Note time and place  for  public meeting(s)  (if they are to be held)
             or offer opportunity for meeting*
           -  Identify lead and support agency contacts
           -  Stress importance of public input on all alternatives
           -  State whether issuance of special notice to  the PRPs has
             occurred (if applicable)
           -  Location of administrative records and information
             repositories
*  Denotes  components required by  statute for inclusion  in the Proposed  Plan.

1  Community includes public and PRPs.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                       2-6
 positions of the lead and support agencies on the preferred alternative.   The
 point should be. made that the final remedial action plan could be  different
 from the preferred alternative.

      2.2.2  Site Description

      The site description should include the site name, location,  a  site  map,
 and a brief description of the site (e.g., site history, key contaminants,
 contaminated media).  In  addition,  the lead and support agencies should be
 identified.

      2.2.3  Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action

      This section summarizes  the extent of the problems and contamination at
 the site, using information from the Remedial Investigation.  If the Proposed
 Plan addresses a single operable unit, this section should discuss how the
 operate unit; fits into the overall site strategy, re . ft. , this represents  the
 second of three planned activities  at the site -- the first addressed
 alternative water supply;  this addresses contaminated ground water, and a
 third will deal with contaminated soils.)  To the extent possible, the
 discussion in this section should focus on the principal threats at the site
 and how this response action  fits into the overall strategy to address those
 threats.

      2.2.4  Alternatives  from the Detailed Analysis in
             the Feasibility Study

      A brief narrative description  of the alternatives studied in  the detailed
 analysis phase of the RI/FS report  should be provided in this section,
 highlighting key information  such as the remedial process . engineering
 controls, Insti «*"«•< oual cfmt££,'1 g ; quantities of waste handledT implementation
 regui r ement s ,  the estimated construction and operation and maintenance costs,
 and the estimated implementation                    *
      2.2.5  The Preferred Alternative

      This section first should  identify the preferred alternative.  Next the
iJliUft r.riy.P'cip used to evaluate  the  alternatives in the detailed analysis in
 the FS should be presented.2  These are:

      1.   Overall Protection:  how the alternative achieves and continues
          to protect human health and the environment.
      2  These evaluation criteria  are  defined in Appendix B and the draft
 RI/FS Guidance (OSWER No. 9355.3-01).
   This review draft ia intended for internal agency review only.  It ha* not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      2-7
     2.  Compliance with Applicable  or Relevant and Appropriate
         Requirements  (ARARs):  how  the alternative complies with ARARs
         or if a waiver is required  and how the waiver is justified.  How
         the alternative complies with advisories,  criteria, and guidance
         that EPA and  State have agreed to follow.

     3.  Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence:  the long-term
         effectiveness of alternatives in protecting human health and the
         environment after response  objectives have been met.

     4.  Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility,  ot; Volume;  the anticipated
         performance of the specific treatment technologies.

     5.  Short-term Effectiveness:   the effectiveness of alternatives in
         protecting human health and the environment during the
         construction  and implementation period until response objectives
         have been met.                 -          .

     6.  Implementabilitv:  the technical and administrative feasibility
         of alternatives, including  the availability of goods and
         services needed to implement the alternative.

     7.  Cost:  the capital and O&M  costs of each alternative.

     8.  State Tor Support Agencvl Acceptance:  the preferences or
         concerns of the support agency about the alternatives in the
         RI/FS report  and Proposed Plan and ARARs or any waivers to them.

     9.  Community Acceptance:  community preferences or concerns about
         alternatives.

     Because information available on the Community Acceptance criterion may
be limited prior to the public comment period on the Proposed Plan and the
RI/FS report, this criterion will be evaluated preliminarily based on the
information available  at the time the Proposed Plan is prepared.  The
Community Acceptance criterion, therefore, will generally be evaluated more
thoroughly in the ROD.

     Under each evaluation criterion, the rationale forjthe lead agency's
decision on the preferred alternativeshould^he briefly discussed.  This is
accomplished by highlighting the advantages and disadvantages between the
preferred alternative  and the other  alternatives with respect to the nine
criteria.  This discussion_need nqt  provide an analyses of each alternative in
relation to the nine criteria.  Rather, it should highlight those
distinguishing factors that- lad m «-He initial decision on the preferred
alternative.  This analysis can be drawn from the "Summary of Comparative
Analysis of Alternatives" section presented in the RI/FS report."'
  This review draft is intended for internal, agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                       OSWER birective 9355.3-02

                                      2-8
     After  the comparative analysis is summarized,  a  summary statement should
 >e made  that the lead agency believes , based on  information currently
available,  that the~pref erred alternative represents  the best balance among
the evaluation criteria and is anticipated to satisfy the  following statutory
findings of being:

         1.   Protective of human health and the  environment;

         2.   In compliance with ARARs (except where a waiver is
              invoked) ;

         3.   Cost-effective;  and

         4.   A remedy that utilizes permanent solutions and
              alternative treatment (or resource  recovery)
              technologies to  the maximum extent  practicable.

     The statutory  preference for treatment as a principal  element does not
have to be  addressed in the Proposed Plan.

     2.2.6   Role of Conmmity in Process

     The public should be informed of the following public  participation
activities:

     1.  the dates  of the public comment period;

     2.  the time(s),  date, and location(s) of the public meeting(s)  held
         pursuant to §117(a),  if applicable (or  offer  to hold a  meeting
         upon request if one  has not been scheduled);

     3.  location of information repositories and administrative
         record(s),  including hours of availability;

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

     5.  whether special notice was sent to the  PRPs to commence the
         negotiation moratorium on response actions [under  CERCLA
         §122(e)].         -  -                          ..........

2.3  For™at3 for the Proposed Pl**n
     The lead -agency ^ay fulfill- the requirement t--n *°°^e  <-h°^ ?rnrna?H Plan by
issuing either a  fact  sheet or stand-alone document separate  from tJT£_PT/Fg
         The lead agency should use its discretion to determine  the  best
vehicle for issuing  the  Proposed Plan.  As a general rule, , the Proposed Plan
should be anywhere from  three to fifteen pages in length, depending on the
complexity of  the site and the format used for presenting the information.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It ha* not ban formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      2-9
Regardless of  the  format chosen,  the Proposed Plan should be  written in such a
way that the information presented can be readily understood  by the general
public.

     2.3.1  Fact Sheet Format

     The EPA and States currently distribute fact sheets as part of the
community relations  activities for a site.  Release of  the Proposed Plan in a
fact sheet format  would fulfill the statutory requirements related to the
Plan.  One must note,  however, that because the Proposed Plan is issued to
fulfill a statutory  requirement,  the Plan may be- organized differently or may
discuss information  not traditionally contained in community  relations fact
sheets.

     Advantages

     •   Fact  sheets are an established tool for communicating to the
         public and  are widely distributed;

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

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

     Disadvantages

     •   The format  may not be appropriate if the lead  agency determines
         that  the  nature of the site requires a lengthier document that
         describes the site and the remedial alternatives in  more detail.

     2.3.2  Stand-Alone Document

     The lead  agency may determine that the development of a  stand-alone
document is the most appropriate option.  This stand-alone document may in
many instances be  similar to a draft ROD.  The use of a stand-alone document
would be most  likely to occur when a more in-depth discussion of the
alternatives in the  RI/FS report is necessary (e.g., if the site is
technically complex, involves a series of operable units, or  is the subject of
enhanced public concern).

     Advantages

     •   A separate  document can provide a more in-depth discussion of the
         lead  and  support agencies' rationale for its initial preference; and

     •   The document may provide the basis for the draft ROD.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It baa not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                        2-10
    Disadvantages

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

    •    Such a  document  may unintentionally draw attention  away from the
         RI/FS report.
This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                 THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE PROPOSED PLAN
3.1  Overview

     This chapter  summarizes the roles and responsibilities  of lead and
support agency personnel in developing the Proposed Plan.  A major component
of the Plan is the presentation of remedial alternatives being considered for
a site or operable unit.   Because agreement on the.viable  alternatives is
critical to the  remedial decision-making process, personnel  in the lead and
support agencies should begin discussions on the alternatives in the detailed
analysis section of the FS as early as possible.  As the RI/FS process
progresses, discussions between the lead and support agency  should begin to
focus on identifying a preferred alternative.  Such early  discussions should
work to reduce delays in later stages of the remedial decision-making process
that could result  due to a lack of information on the part of either the lead
or support agency.

     The major steps in preparing the Proposed Plan for public comment are
summarized in the  flow diagram below.  The sequence in which these steps are
taken, however,  may vary among Regions and States.  The process for the
Proposed.Plan generally begins when the lead agency completes the RI/FS report
for a site.   Although the RI/FS report can be sent to the  support agency for
review concurrently with the Proposed Plan, the RI/FS report should be sent to
the support agency as soon as it is completed.  Based on the results in the
RI/FS report  and subsequent discussion between the lead and  support agencies,
a tentative decision is made on a preferred alternative.   Next,  the management
of the lead agency is briefed on the RI/FS and preferred alternative, and a
draft Proposed Plan is developed.   The draft Plan is submitted to the support
agency and to the  lead agency decision-maker for review and  comment.  During
this review period,  other internal agency reviews of the RI/FS report (if not
already underway)  and the Proposed Plan may be initiated within the lead
agency.

Finalize
RI/FS
and send
to
Support
Agency




^


Brief
Management
of
Lead
Agency
on RI/FS
and
Preferred
Alternative


-




Prepare
• Draft
Proposed
Plan




—



Submit
Proposed
Plan to
Support
Agency


Brief Lead
Agency
Decisinn-
maker
on
Proposed
Plan


Respond to
Support
Agency's
Comments
Finalize
Proposed
Plan


Publish
Newspaper
Notice of
Availability
or Proposed
Plan and
RI/FS
                                                                       Public
                                                                      Comment
                                                                       Period
                          Highlighted IKH.M denote statutory
     •*  Scheduling of the management briefing will vary  from Region to Region
or State to State.
  This roviaw draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this staga b« construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      3-2
      Using the comments of the support agency and the  results  of the internal
 review process,  the lead agency prepares a final Proposed  Plan.   This final
 version should include a summary of the support agency's agreement with the
 Plan or its dissenting comments.  Finally, notice of availability of the RI/FS
 report and the Proposed Plan is published in a major newspaper of general
 circulation and both documents are made available to the public  for comment.
 3.2  Roles **nA ftegponaibll.iti.es t*f ri»e Lead Agency a"d Support Agency

      For the Proposed Plan process to be successful, lead and support agencies
 should interact throughout the RI/FS and Proposed Plan development process.
 The goal of this continued interaction is to reach agreement  on  the Proposed
 Plan and the RI/FS report.  Agreement by these agencies at the Proposed Plan
 and ROD stages will depend on the interaction and flow of information between
 the State and EPA throughout the RI/FS process.

      3.2.1  Designation of Roles and Responsibilities

'      The EPA and State will have specific roles and responsibilities
 throughout the remedial process.  These should be specified either in a
 Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA) or Cooperative Agreement  (CA).4  The
 SMOA or CA should designate the lead and support agency for conducting the
 RI/FS,  developing the Proposed Plan,  and drafting the ROD.  The  SMOA,  if
 available,  should describe the general procedures for oversight  and
 interaction between EPA and the State.  Additionally, the SMOA may contain
 site-specific agreements between EPA and the State, such as designation of the
 roles of the lead and support agencies at specific remedial sites.   In the
 absence of a SMOA,  a Cooperative Agreement negotiated between EPA  and the
 State should function in an equivalent manner for a specific  site.

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

      1.   Draft the  Proposed Plan;

      2.   Seek the support agency's comments on the Proposed Plan;

      3.   Respond to support agency's  comments;

      4.   Summarize  support agency's comments in the Proposed  Plan;
     * • The  SMOA is  a procedural agreement that outlines cooperative  efforts
between States  and EPA Regions and defines the roles and responsibilities  of
each party in the conduct of a Superfund program in a State.  For more
information  on  these,  see Draft Guidance on Preparing a Superfund Memorandum
of Agreement (SMOA)  (OSWER #9375.0-01).  A Cooperative Agreement is a
contractual  agreement between the Fund and a State, in which the Fund
appropriates money to a State to conduct remedial action in compliance with
the NCP.
  This review draft ia intended for internal agency review only.  It baa not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      3-3
     5.  Publish newspaper notice of availability of the RI/FS report
         and  Proposed Plan;

     6.  Make the  RI/FS  report and Proposed Plan available to the
         public in the administrative record;  and

     7.  Provide an opportunity for public meetings.

     The support agency's  primary responsibilities with respect to the
Proposed Plan are  to:

     1.  Review and comment in a timely fashion on the RI/FS report,
         Proposed  Plan,  the preferred alternative, and aspects of
         other remedial  alternatives, including ARARs and waivers to
         them.

     The role of other program offices within either EPA or State agencies  is
to provide specific comments on the alternatives analyzed in the RI/FS report,
the performance goals  (e.g.,  engineering controls) of the alternatives, and
ARARs.  EPA and States should establish the appropriate procedures and
timeframes for their respective intra-agency reviews.  Review of the RI/FS
report by other intra-agency program offices,  however, should be done at
appropriate point(s)  throughout the RI/FS process to ensure that alternatives
set forth in  the detailed  analysis phase of the RI/FS report comply with other
program requirements (i.e.,  ARARs).   For EPA,  this will involve review by
program offices such as  the Water Program,  the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act  Program,  and  the toxic Substance  Control Act program.  If the
Proposed Plan is complete  when the RI/FS report is ready to be circulated to
the other program  offices,  the Plan should be  circulated at the same time.  If
the Plan is not ready, a cover memo indicating the preferred alternative
should accompany the RI/FS report.

     3.2.2  Managerial Review of the Proposed Plan

     The lead and  support  agencies should determine the appropriate level of
managerial review  for the  Proposed Plan and, as appropriate, include such
information in the SMOA  or CA.   It is recommended that the Regional
Administrator (RA) and State Director (SD)  be  briefed on the Proposed Plan  and
RI/FS report  by their respective staffs prior  to release of the documents to
the public.   The AA of OSWER should be briefed if the Proposed Plan and ROD
for a site have not been delegated to the RA.   Because the Proposed Plan
provides the  initial opportunity for the public to comment on the remedial
action initially identified by EPA and the State as the preferred alternative,
it is important that the RA or SD be apprised of the contents of both the
Proposed Plan and  RI/FS  report,  as well as any unresolved or potential issues.
This is especially true  if a waiver of an ARAR is involved or if the staffs of
the lead and  support agencies have unresolved issues.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      3-4
      3.2.3   Support Agency Content Period

      The support  agency comment period represents an important opportunity  for
reaching agreement  on the  preferred alternative for addressing a site.  The
lead  agency  will  seek the  support agency's agreement on the Proposed Plan
prior to making the Plan available to the public, as required by §121(f ) (1) (G)
of CERCLA.   This  comment period will commence upon receipt of the Proposed
Plan  from the  lead  agency  and should last at least 5 working days, unless a
different time frame for- review is established in the SMOA or CA.  As
previously mentioned,  the  RI/FS report may be given to the support agency
before or at the  same  time the Proposed Plan is ready for review.  The review
period for the RI/FS should last 15 working days unless a different time
period is established in the SMOA or CA.

      During  its review,  the support agency may comment on the preferred
alternative  and other  components of the Proposed Plan, by registering
(1) agreement, with comment,  (2) disagreement, with comment, or (3) no comment
on the Plan.   The support  agency's fornal, written cements will become part:
of the administrative  record.   Informal deliberations between EPA and a State
prior to the official  support agency comment period are not part of the
administrative record.

      The lead  agency may encounter situations where the support agency, for
any number of  reasons ,  does not respond to the request for comments or prefers
to withhold  comments until the public comment period.  In such cases, the
written request(s)  for comments on the Proposed Plan and a note documenting
that  the support  agency did not comment should be placed in the administrative
record by the  lead  agency.

      3.2.4   Response to Support Agency Comments

      Upon receiving the support agency's comments on the Proposed Plan, the
lead  agency  will  respond formally to any comments prior to making the Proposed
Plan  available to the  public.   The lead agency should address any unresolved
issues with  the support agency by providing a written explanation of its point
of view to the support agency.   The response should address any concerns
relating to  the alternatives identified in the Proposed Plan, the preferred
alternative, and  any proposed action that would require a waiver (especially
from  a promulgated  State standard) .   The lead agency may address minor
comments within the text of the Proposed Plan.  When the support agency
comments do  not indicate agreement with the Proposed Plan, the support agency
comments and the  response  to those comments must be included in the
administrative record.   All support agency comments (e.g., concurrence on the
preferred alternative)  should be summarized in the Proposed Plan.
3.3  Proce«i"'rag For Resolving Disputes

     If a dispute should arise between the lead and support agencies during
any phase of the remedial process,  the staffs of the lead and support agencies
should attempt to resolve these  issues in a timely manner.  In the event that
  This review draft la intended tor internal agency review only.  It has not been .formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      3-5               '
staff resolution is not possible,  the  issue(s)  should be elevated promptly to
the attention of management for  resolution.

     The lead and support agencies should use the dispute resolution process
specified in the SMOA or CA, when  these are available.  Where Federal agencies
are involved, the dispute resolution process specified in the IAG should be
followed, if procedures have been  established in these documents.  If the SMOA
or CA do not include dispute resolution procedures,  the lead and support
agencies may consider utilizing  the dispute resolution process specified in
Subpart F of the proposed NCP.

     Subpart F of the proposed revisions to the NCP will specify a dispute
resolution process that. Regions  and States can use in resolving disputes
during the RI/FS and remedy selection  process.   This approach encourages the
lead and support agencies' Remedial Proj ect Managers to resolve promptly any
dispute that arises at their level.  If this cannot be accomplished, the issue
may be referred to the supervisors of.these persons for further EPA/State
consultation.5  This supervisory referral and resolution process will
continue, if necessary, to the level of Director of the State Agency and the
RA'.  If agreement still cannot be  reached, the  dispute will be referred to the
AA (OSWER) who will serve as arbiter.

     Regardless of the process utilized, the result should be an equitable
resolution of outstanding issues.   There may be instances, however, where a
final resolution cannot be achieved.   If this should occur, there are two
alternatives for continuing effective  action. First, where EPA is the lead
agency (pursuant to §§104, 106,  or 122), and final resolution is not achieved,
the Region should use its discretion on proceeding with publication of the
Proposed Plan.  Second, in the event that the State is the lead agency
(pursuant to §104) and resolution  cannot be reached, EPA may elect to become
the lead agency for the Proposed Plan,  public participation activities, and
the ROD.

3.4  Role of Other Federal Entities

     Executive Order 12580 delegates the authority for carrying out the
requirements of §§117(a) and (c) of CERCLA to Federal agencies with Federal
facilities under their jurisdiction.   A Federal agency, therefore, has the
responsibility to issue the Proposed Plan.  The inter-agency agreements (lAGs)
between a Federal agency, EPA, and in  some cases, a State will establish the
responsibilities of each party in  preparing the Proposed Plan for Federal
facilities.
     '  It is possible that  one  of the participants will choose to refer an
unresolved issue to upper management while the other participant chooses to
maintain jurisdiction over the  issue.
  Ibis review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                       3-6
     As  Che  lead agency, a Federal  agency's responsibilities  for  preparing the
Proposed Plan will include those  lead agency responsibilities  specified in
Chapters 2 and 3 of this guidance.  As the support agencies,  EPA  and/or the
State must be provided an adequate  period prior to publication of the Proposed
Plan during  which to comment on the RI/FS report and the draft Proposed Plan.
The length of the review period will  be specified in the IAG.   The Federal
agency must  respond formally to comments made by EPA and a State  prior to
issuance of  the Proposed Plan.  Support agency comments and responses to those
comments must be summarized in the  Proposed Plan and included  in  the
administrative record prior to the  public comment period.  The Proposed Plan
prepared by  the Federal agency will:   (1) state whether the support
agency(ies)  agree or disagree with  the Proposed Plan (especially  the  preferred
alternative);  (2) if there is a disagreement, indicate what alternative the
support  agency(ies) prefer; and (3) provide a summary of any outstanding
support  agency comments.
  Thia review draft ia intended for internal agency review only.  It haa not been formally releaaed by the
  U.S. Environm«ntal Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                THE NEWSPAPER NOTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF
                 THE  PROPOSED PLAN AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
     This chapter  summarizes  the requirements for the newspaper notification
of availability of the  Proposed Plan and discusses the public comment  period.

4.1  Statutory Retniirenents

     Upon completion  of  the  Proposed Plan, the public .is notified  of  the
availability of the Plan,  the RI/FS report, and the administrative  record.
The statutory requirements affecting the newspaper notification are included
in CERCLA §§117(a)  and  117(d).   These include the requirement in  §117(a) to:

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

          "The notice and analysis ... shall include sufficient
          information as  may  be necessary to provide a reasonable
          explanation of  the  proposed plan and alternative proposals
          considered."

With further specifications made in §117(d) that:

          "For the  purposes of this section, publication shall
          include,  at a minimum,  publication in a major local
          newspaper of  general circulation.  In addition, each item
          developed, received,  published, or made available to the
          public under  this section shall be available for public
          inspection and  copying [in the administrative record] at
          or near  the facility at issue."

4.2  Writing The Newspaper Notification

     In writing the newspaper notification, the lead agency should  prepare  an
abridged discussion of  the Proposed Plan that describes the alternatives
analyzed and Identifies the preferred alternative.  The notice preferably will
be published in a widely  read section of the newspaper, not in less widely
read sections, such as  the classifieds and the legal notices.  It is
recommended that an advertisement area of a sixteenth to a quarter-page should
be purchased.  Because  this notice plays an important role in the public
participation process,  the notice should be written in a clear, simple style.
Key elements of the notification are summarized below; Exhibit 4-1  provides a
sample newspaper notification.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only..  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      4-2



     4.2.1  Section-by-Section Description of  the  Newspaper Notification

     The  suggested key elements for the newspaper  notification include:

           •   Site  Name and Location;

           •   Identification of lead and support agencies;

           •   Public Participation Activities:

                 Notice that RI/FS and Proposed Plan  are available*
                 Dates for the public comment period  and how to
                 submit comments
                 Time,  date,  and location of public meetings
                 Notice that the administrative record  is
                 available,  and location and hours of
                 availability of public information repositories
                 and administrative records
                 Name(s)  of contact person(s), phone  number and
                 address
                 Any special notice to PRPs for the remedial
                 design/remedial action

           •   List  of other alternatives from the detailed  analysis
              phase of the FS;*

           •   Identification of preferred alternative;*  and

           •   Request for  comments.

The details  of  these components are presented below.

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

     Identification of Lead and. Support Agencies.  Identification of the lead
and support  agency,  (i.e.,  EPA, State agency, or other  Federal agency,)
involved in  the remedial  activities at the site should  be  included in the
notice.

     Public  Participation.   The notice should inform  the public of its role in
the decision-making process,  and provide information  on the. length of the
public comment  period,  location of the information repositories and
administrative  record,  methods by which the public may  submit comments, and
notice of  the date and location of a public meeting (if scheduled).   If a
*  Statutory requirements  of §117(a).
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                   EXHIBIT 4-1
                                      SAMPLE NEWSPAPER NOTIFICATION
                                   OF AVAILABILITY OF THE PROPOSED PLAN
                                                         THE UNITED STATES
                                               ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                                       Invites
                                                 PUBLIC COMMENT

                           ON A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
                                          AND PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE

                                               EIO INDUSTRIAL SITE
                                      129 FRANKLIN STREET, NAMELESS, TN

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Tennessee Pollution Control Board invite public comment on the Remedu
  Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Report and the Proposed Plan for the EIO Industrial Syperfund site that has been contaminate
  by septic wastes, hydrocarbons, and heavy metals.

    EPA, the lead agency for the site, and the State, the support agency, will host a Public Meeting to discuss the Plan and receive con
  merits on June 15, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Community Hall. 123 Elm Road, Nameless, Tennessee.

    In the analysis of how to resolve site problems, the following alternative strategies for contaminated soil control were detailed:

          — Capping
          — Excavation and disposal in an off-site landfill
          — Excavation, treatment of volatile organics in a vaporization loop, and disposal in an on-site landfill
          — Excavation and off-site incineration
          — Excavation, on-site  incineration, and solidification
          — No action                                                  .   -

    Based on available information, the EPA's and the State's preferred alternative at this time is to excavate 28,000 cubic yards of cot
  taminated soil from the site, treat the volatile organics in a vaporization loop, and dispose treated soils in an on-site landfill. The preferenc
  is based on a preliminary finding that the preferred alternative would protect human health and the environment, be consistent wr
  other laws, be cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Althouc
  this is the preferred alternative at present, the EPA and State welcome the public's comments on all alternatives studied in the detail*
  analysis in the^l/FS Report and Proposed Plan. The EPA and State will choose the final remedy after the public comment period ru
  concluded, and may choose a remedy other than the initial preferred alternative identified here and in the Proposed Plan.

    The Proposed Plan summarizing the analysis of alternatives and rationale for EPA's and the State's preference has been mailed
  all known interested parties. Also, complete documentation of the analysis is in the RI/FS Report and administrative record availab
  for  review between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays at the Nameless Public Library, 125 Elm Street. A copy of tt
  Proposed Plan is also available at this location.

    The public may comment at the planned public meeting or may submit written comments until June 30,1988 to J. Doe at the Agerv
  address below. For more information, contact:

                                                        J. Doe
                                            Community Relations Coordinator
                                          U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
                                                 123 Peachtree Street
                                                   Atlanta. QA 00000
                                                    (555) 555-4640
                           Toll Free (800) 333-3333 between 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday to Friday
This review draft is intended for internal agency review only. It has not been formally released by the U.S. Environmental Protection,
cy and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      4-4
meeting has  not been requested, the notice should provide  the  opportunity for
the public to  request one.   In addition, the notice should indicate whether a
special notice to the PRFs  has been issued, whether a moratorium is in effect,
and if  so, when the  moratorium ends.

     Other Alternatives front Detailed Analysis.  The remedial  alternatives
analyzed  in  the detailed analysis phase of the RI/FS report should be  listed.

     Identification  of Preferred Alternative.  A brief statement of the major
components of  the preferred alternative should be included.

     Request for Coments.   The notice should enphasize that the lead  agency
is eliciting public  consent on all the alternatives analyzed in the detailed
analysis phase of the RI/FS, as well as on the preferred alternative.   A very
clear statement should be included that the preferred alternative is only a
preliminary  determination and that any of the remedies presented could be
selected based upon  public  comment, new information, or a  reappraisal  of
existing information.   The  readers should be referred to the RI/FS  report for
further information  on all  the remedies considered.

4.3  Public  n»nM»nt  Period

     This section provides  guidance on the procedures the  lead agency  should
follow  to satisfy the  public participation requirements in §117  of  CERCLA.

Section 117(a)(2)  requires  that the lead agency provide:

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

     The lead  agency,  therefore,  is charged with making key documents,  such as
the Proposed Plan and  the RI/FS report, available to the public  before
initiating the  public  comment period.   In addition, the lead agency must
ensure  that any information considered or relied upon in selecting  the
response action is included as part of the administrative  record and is
available to the  public.

     CERCLA  §117(a)(2)  also requires  the lead agency to provide  the public
with a  reasonable opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the
Proposed Plan,  the RI/FS  report,  and  on any proposed waivers relating  to
cleanup standards.   The current NCP specifies that a minimum of  21  days  be
allowed for public comment.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      4-5
     During  Che comment period, public meetings typically are held.   The lead
agency must  keep a transcript of any planned or announced meetings  open to the
public during the public comment period,  whether formal or informal,  where the
lead agency  is present- and the Proposed  Plan and RI/FS report are discussed:
These transcripts must be made available for public inspection  in the
administrative record.

     The  lead agency may ask that comments  received earlier in  the  RI/FS
process or comments on earlier operable  units be resubmitted during the
comment period so they may be officially on record.  It should  be noted that
the lead  agency has no obligation to respond to comments received orally or in
writing prior to the public comment period.   The lead agency, however,  is
encouraged to respond to such comments.   Further guidance on the public
comment period and the lead agency's responsibilities can be found  in the
Community Relations in Suoerfund;  A Handbook (OSWER Directive  #92300-38) and
the Interim  Guidance on CERCLA Administrative Records (OSWER Directive
#9833.1A).
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only. It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                          PRE-ROD SIGNIFICANT  CHANGES
 5.1  Overviev

      At the conclusion of the public comment period,  the lead agency will
 select a final alternative for adoption in  the ROD  based on the analysis in
 the Proposed Plan and RI/FS report, giving  consideration to the support agency
 and public comments, and any new and significant  information that may have
 been received.  The lead agency will re-evaluate  the  preferred alternative in
 light of any significant, new information that may  have been received.  As a
 result of the re-evaluation, the lead agency may  change a component of the
 final alternative or choose to implement a  remedy other than the preferred
.alternative in the Proposed Plan.  The lead agency  must analyze these changes
 to determine if the modifications are significant per CERCLA §117(b).  Any
 significant changes that are made from the  time that  the preferred alternative
 is presented for public review in the Proposed Plan to adoption of the final
 remedy in the ROD must be discussed in the  ROD.   In some instances,
 significant changes may also warrant reissuance of  the Proposed Plan and
 additional public comment.

      What constitutes a "significant" change will be  a site-specific
 determination made by the lead agency, taking into  consideration the
 information available to the public, the original description of the
 alternatives in the Proposed Plan and RI/FS report, and the impact the changes
 may have on the scope, performance, of cost of the  remedy.  This chapter
 presents a general framework for categorizing minor and significant changes
 made to the preferred alternative in developing the final remedial action plan
 and specifies documentation and public information  activities that may be
 necessary.  Because the definition of a significant change will vary depending
 on site circumstances, absolute 'definitions of significant changes cannot be
 developed in this guidance.  Chapter 6 presents details on how the
 documentation of significant changes should be included in the Decision
 Summary in the ROD.

 5.2  Requirement to Address Char|ge3

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

           "[ajccompanied by a discussion of any significant
           changes (and the reasons for such changes)  in the
           proposed plan and a response to each of the
           significant comments, criticisms, and new data
           submitted [on the RI/FS report and the  Proposed Plan.]"
   This review draft is intended tot internal agency review only. It has not been formally released by the
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      5-2
      Based on this requirement, when significant changes  are  identified,  the
 lead agency must document the changes, and the reasons  for  the significant
 changes,  in the Decision Summary section of the ROD.  In  addition to this
 statutory requirement, the lead agency will need to  determine if the
 significant changes to the final alternative were presented in such a manner
 in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS report that the public could have
 reasonably anticipated them.  This determination would  be based on general
'principles of administrative law in the Administrative  Procedure Act which
 specify that interested persons must be given an opportunity  to submit written
 comments  on a proposed action.   Where such changes  could not reasonably have
 been anticipated by the public, the lead agency must provide  an additional
 opportunity for public comment.

      5.3   Identifying Categories of Changes

      New  information received during the public comment period typically
 affects the scope,  performance, or cost of the remedial approach.   The focus
 of the lead agency's analysis, therefore, will be on whether  the new
 information causes  significant or non-significant (minor) changes to these
 aspects of the final remedial alternative.  Exhibit  5-1 shows a flow chart of
 the process for analyzing and documenting significant changes.   Changes in
 scope,  performance,  and cost generally include the following:

 Scope:         Changes that alter the selected alternative by  addressing a
               substantially greater volume of waste, a  new  environmental
               pathway, or by encompassing a substantially greater physical
               area  of the site;

 Performance:   Changes in treatment technologies or processes  that alter the
               long-term effectiveness of the remedy, have different short-term
               effects, or provide a different level  of  performance.

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

      5.3.1  Non-significant Changes

      Non-significant, or minor changes, are those that  have little or no
 impact on the overall scope, performance, or cost of the  alternative as
 originally proposed in the RI/FS report or Proposed  Plan.   Such changes
 typically will be clarifications, administrative changes, and minor technical
 or engineering changes that do not significantly alter  the  overall scope,
 performance,  or cost of the alternative (e.g., the addition of a ground-water
 monitoring well, an additional filter in a treatment process,  or a minor
 change in the location of a fence).   Although the statute does not require
         5  U.S.C.  §553(c)(1976).
  This review draft ia intended for internal agency review only.  It ha» not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                    Exhibit 5-1

                                           PRE-ROD CHANGES
                                           Does Change .
                                           Significantly Affect
Public Comments On:
 • FS
 • Administrative
  Record

 • Proposed Plan
   Would
Changes Pass
   Logical
 Outgrowth
   Test?
  Lead
 Agency
 Analyzes
Comments
• Scope
• Performance
• Cost
                                           of Selected
                                           Alternative
Prepare
ROD and
Document
Changes



Sign
ROD

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

                                      5-4
documentation of  these  minor changes ,  these should be documented  in  the
Description of Alternatives section of the ROD Decision Summary and  in
supporting information  in the administrative record.  Minor changes  should not
be discussed in the  significant changes section of the ROD Decision  Summary.

     5.3.2  Significant Changes                  ,

     New information or public comments may cause the lead agency  to make
changes to the selected alternative that affect significantly the  scope,
performance, or cost of the selected remedy.  The lead agency may  decide,  for
example, to double the  physical size of the site; to change the remediation
period from the three years as originally proposed to five years;  or increase
the operation and maintenance costs by $20,000 a year.  When a significant
change is made, the  lead agency at a minimum must document the change  and  the
reasons for such  changes in the Decision Summary of the ROD.

5.4  Criteria
     There are two categories  of significant changes -- those that are a
logical outgrowth of the  information and analysis already presented to the
public and those that are not.   Changes that are a logical outgrowth are those
that the public could have  reasonably anticipated the lead agency making based
on the information available to  them during public comment.  If the lead
aeencv determines that the  significant change is a logical outgrowth, the
change only requires documentation and explanation in the ROD Decision
*>iinnq,«irv .  In those limited  situations where the public could not have
reasonably anticipated the  changes,  the lead agency must reissue the Proposed
Plan for public comment.  The  Plan oust be prepared in accordance with the
requirements of §117 of CERCLA and the NCP.   (These requirements are discussed
in Chapter 2 and 3 of this  guidance.)

     5.4.1  Significant Changes  that may be a Logical Outgrowth of the
            Infomation Available to the Public

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

     1..  A change to a component of the final alternative

     The lead agency may  make  a  change to a component of the remedy (e.g. , a
change in cost, timing, level  of performance, or ARARs) which may result in a
significant alteration to the  scope,  performance, or cost of the remedy while
the overall treatment process  remains the same.  If the significant change to
a component of the alternative could have been reasonably anticipated by the
public, the lead agency need only document the significant change in the ROD
Decision Summary.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has hot been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      5-5



     2.  Selection  of  a  remedy other than the preferred alternative

     The lead agency may determine,, based on information received during the
comment period,  that the preferred alternative in the Proposed Flan no longer
provides the most appropriate  balance among the evaluation criteria.
Information available  to the lead agency may suggest that another alternative
from the Proposed Plan and RI/FS  report provides the best balance, and the
lead agency can  select the other  alternative.  Such a change only requires
documentation in the ROD,  because the remedy was identified by the lead agency
as a potential remedy  in the detailed analysis phases of the FS, and the
public had an adequate opportunity to review and comment on it.

     3,  Combining  components  of  alternatives

     In some instances,  Proposed  Plans and RI/FS reports may include a series
of options for remediating more than one contaminant pathway (e.g. soils and
ground water) at a  site.   For  example,  an RI/FS report prepared for a site
develops two sets of alternatives,  one set to address the source of
contamination and another to remediate the ground water.  In identifying the
preferred alternative  for each of these pathways in the Proposed Plan, the
lead agency did  not have to make  a conclusive determination regarding the
appropriate combination  of the source control and ground-water alternatives
for .the site.  Thus, if  the lead  agency chooses to retain the preferred
alternative for  the ground-water  route,  but rejects the source control
preferred alternative  and chooses a different alternative from among those
presented in the Proposed Plan, the selections would be considered a logical
outgrowth of the information and  would not require a new comment period.  The
change, however, would need to be documented in the ROD.

     5.4.2  Significant  Changes that nay not: be a Logical Outgrowth of the
            Information  Available to the Public

     Changes that are  not a logical outgrowth of the information presented'in
the Proposed Plan and  the RI/FS report must be documented by the lead agency
in a new Proposed Plan.   A new public comment period also must be held.
Changes that require additional public comment include:

     1.  Selection  of  a  new alternative not previously analyzed

     The lead agency may determine that an alternative not presented in the
Proposed Plan or detailed analysis phase of the RI/FS report should be
selected as the  final  alternative.   In this case, the lead agency must issue a
new Proposed Plan and  seek public comment on the new alternative and
supporting information,  because the public could not have reasonably
anticipated the  lead agency making such a significant change.  The change also
must be documented  in  the ROD.
  This review draft is intended tot internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                      OSWEK Directive  9355.3-02

                                      5-6
      2.   A significant change to a component of the alternative

      A change  to a component of the selected alternative  (e.g.,  a  new ARAR;  a
significant change in the administrative feasibility; or  the  alternative's
ability  to reduce the mobility, toxicity, or volume of waste) will require
additional public comment when the change radically alters  the overall remedy
with  regard to the scope, performance, or cost in a manner  that  the public
could not have reasonably anticipated.  Such changes, for example,  could
radically alter the volume of waste managed, the physical scope  of the action,
or the level of performance,  as estimated in the Proposed Plan and RI/FS
report .

5.5   Fyji"ples  of Fre-ROD Changes

      To  develop specific examples of the three types of changes  that can be
made  (i.e.,  minor changes,  significant changes requiring explanation in the
ROD,  and significant changes  requiring the issuance of a new  Proposed Plan in
addition to  a  public comment  period) ,  the information in the  sample Proposed
Plan  in  Appendix A of this guidance is used.  That Plan is  for a hypothetical
site  where septic wastes and  some hazardous wastes were disposed.   The sample
Proposed Plan  presents five alternatives for controlling the  source of
contamination  at the site.  These five alternatives are:

             no action;
             capping;
             excavation and disposal in an off -site landfill;
             excavation,  vaporization of volatile organics, and
             disposal in an on-site landfill;
             off -site incineration; and
             on-site incineration and solidification.

The specifications of the preferred alternative include:

         Excavation,  volatilization, disposal in an on-site  landfill
         Address 28,000 cubic  yards of contaminated soil
      -   Capital cost:   $4,666,000
      -   Annual O&M cost:   $41,000
         Implementation time:   12 to 15 months.

            Change
     Based on  information received during the public comment period, the  lead
agency determines  that  the capital cost estimate in the Proposed Plan was  20%
too low; the actual  capital cost of the remedy is $5,600,000.  The lead agency
also determines  that two  additional wells will be drilled to monitor the  long-
term effectiveness of the on-site landfill.   These changes do not
significantly  alter  the scope,  performance,  or cost of the remedy.  Although
the changes are  not  required to be explained in the ROD, an explanation should
be provided in the Description of Alternatives section in the ROD and
supporting information  should be included in the administrative record.
  This review draft ia intended Cor internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      5-7
     sjjmj,fjLc**1!^  Change Requiring Doc"T"entati.on in **Tne ROD

     The lead agency  receives new information during the public  comment period
that causes them  to determine that a new performance level must  be  met; as a
result, the volume of contaminated soils that should be addressed is  10,000
cubic yards greater than initially estimated.  To incorporate  this  change, the
final remedial action plan specifications are as follows:

     -  Excavation, volatilization, disposal in an on-site landfill
     -  Address 38,000 cubic  yards of contaminated soil
     -  Capital cost:   $5,366,000
     -  Annual O&M cost:   $41,000
        Implementation time:   18 to 21 months.

     To address the larger volume, the lead agency decides to  implement the
preferred alternative with some changes made to those components presented in
the Proposed Plan.  The additional volume of soils to be addressed  is not
expected to alter radically the scope, performance, or cost of the  remedy.
Although the volume of soils  being addressed are increased by  a  third,  there
are economies to  scale in the landfill construction and volatilization process
such that capital costs of the remedy are expected to increase only 15
percent, and O&M  costs are not expected to increase at all.  The time required
to implement the  remedy is increased by approximately 6 months.   The  changes
in the specifications of the  components of the remedy are documented  in the
ROD Decision Summary,  including an explanation as to why the changes  were
made.  No additional  public comment is deemed necessary.
     A remedy is selected  that was not presented in the Proposed  Plan or the
detailed analysis  section  of the FS.   The selected alternative  is:

     -  In-situ vitrification
     -  Address 28,000  cubic yards of contaminated soil
     -  Capital cost: $3,920,000 - $5,292,000
     -  Annual O&M costs:   $33,000
        Implementation  time:   12 to 15 months.

     This remedy is  selected because new information is received  indicating
that in-situ vitrification could be used effectively at the site.  This  new
remedy, however, is  quite  different in scope and performance from the initial
preferred alternative.   Because  the public has not had an opportunity to
comment on the technical,  environmental, and human health aspects of  the
remedy, a new Proposed  Plan is prepared and a comment period held before the
remedy can be adopted in the ROD.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It haa not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                            THE RECORD OF DECISION
     This chapter  summarizes the purpose of the Record of Decision  (ROD)  and
the statutory requirements  for issuing the ROD.  A section-by- section
discussion of the  key elements of the ROD also is presented.

6.1
     The ROD  is  issued by the lead agency as the final remedial action  plan
for a site or operable unit and serves a number of important functions.
First, a ROD  summarizes  the problems posed by a site and provides an  analysis
of the alternative ways  to address those problems .   A ROD is also a legal
document that demonstrates that the lead agency's decision making has been
carried out in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP by explaining the rationale
by which the  remedy was  selected.

    . Records  of  Decision will be issued for all final remedial actions  taken
pursuant to §§104, 106,  120 or 122 of CERCLA, as amended.  Final renedial
actions are those CERCLA actions that constitute a final response for an
entire site,  a portion of the site, or a contaminant pathway (e.g., -an
operable unit) .  Non- f 5 Tial | remedial actions . such as an alternate water
supply, a temporary cap, or removal of drums, also will be documented in a
decision document.  Guidance on preparing decision documents for non- final
remedial actions is currently being developed by the Agency.  In the  interim,
Regional Coordinators  in Headquarters should be contacted for guidance  on how
to document non- final  remedial actions.

     Requirement to Issue the Record of Decision

     CERCLA alludes to the ROD in two places.  Section 113(k) (2)(B) (v)  of
CERCLA, as amended, calls for:

          "a  statement of basis and purpose for the selected remedy
          at  a site."

In addition,  §117 (b) requires that:

          "notice of the final remedial action plan [ROD] adopted
          shall  be published and the plan shall be made available to
          the public before commencement of any remedial action.
          Such final plan shall be accompanied by a discussion of
          any significant changes (and the reasons for such changes)
          in  the proposed plan and a response to each of the
          significant  comments, criticisms, and new data submitted
          in  written or  oral presentations [Responsiveness
          Summary] . "
  This review draft ia intended for internal, agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      6-2
     Writing the Record of Decision

     The ROD consists  of three basic components:  (1) a Declaration signed by
the RA  or AA stating the selected remedy and indicating that  the  selection was
carried out  in  accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements of the
Superfund program;  (2)  a Decision Summary that provides an overview of the
problems posed  by the  site,  the alternatives evaluated and the analysis of
those options,  and an  explanation of how the statutory requirements were met;
and (3) a Responsiveness Sumary which addresses public comments  received on
the Proposed Plan and  RI/FS  report and other information made available in the
administrative  record.   The  key elements of each of these three components are
summarized below.

6.2  Key Elements of the Declaration                       '

     The ROD Declaration is  a formal statement explaining that the  selected
remedy  complies  with CERCLA  and is consistent with the NCP, to the  extent
practicable.  The Declaration provides a brief description of the selected
remedy  for a site and  is the section of the ROD signed by the RA  or AA,  and
the State Director,  as  appropriate.   An outline of the Declaration  is  located
in Appendix  C and two  sample Declarations are presented in Appendix D.
Information  presented  in the ROD Declaration includes:

                Site  Name and Location;
                Statement of  Basis and Purpose;
                Description of the Selected Remedy;
                Declaration;
                Signature of  RA or AA; and
                Signature of  State Director or letter of
                concurrence from the  State.

     6.2.1   Site Name  and Location

     The proper  site name (from the  NFL) and location, including  only  the town
or county and state  in which the site is located should be included.

     6.2.2   Statenent  of Basis and Purpose

     This section serves as  an explanation that the ROD is the lead agency's
"statement of basis  and purpose" in fulfillment of §113(k)(2)(v).   In
addition, a  statement  should be made that the lead and support agency's
decision on  the  selected remedy is based on the administrative record.   This
section should  also  indicate the concurrence of the support agency  with the
selected remedy.   The  letter of concurrence from the State, if the  State
Director is  not  a signator on the ROD, and the index to the administrative
record  should be  placed in the.administrative record with the ROD.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      6-3
     6.2.3  Description of the  Selected Renedy

     Next, Che selected remedy  should be identified and described briefly.,
specifying the technologies  to  be  used and any additional actions to be taken.
If the site strategy consists of operable units,  a brief discussion should be
included of how this response action fits into the overall site cleanup
strategy.  To the extent possible  this brief discussion should reflect how the
selected response action does or does not address the principal threats and
how it fits into the overall strategy to remediate the site.

     6.2.4  Declaration Statenent

     A statement should be made that the selected remedy satisfies the
statutory requirements  of  CERCLA,  and is consistent to the extent practicable
with the NCP.  For cases in  which  the selected remedy does not employ
treatment that permanently and  significantly reduces toxicity, mobility and
volume, as its principal element,  §121(b) of CERCLA requires that the lead
agency explain why a remedy  was chosen that does  not satisfy the statutory
preference.  This explanation will be made in the ROD Declaration.  In
addition, if a remedial action  is  selected that results in hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site
based levels, a review of  the  remedial  action is required by CERCLA §121(C).
This review must occur no  less of ten than once every five years after
implementation of the selected remedy.   These reviews are conducted to ensure
the remedy continues to be protective of human health and the environment.
This designation should also be made in the  Declaration.

     Boilerplate language  is provided below  for remedies  in which treatment is
a principal element and for those  in which it is not.  Language also . is
provided to address the facility review requirement.  Appendix D provides
site -specific examples of  Declaration language.

     6.2.4.1  Sanple Text  of Declaration Concerning a Renedy that Meets the
              Statutory Preference for  Treatnent as a Principal Elenent

     When the selected remedy  satisfies the  statutory preference for treatment
as a principal element, by treating at  least the principal threat (s) posed by
the site, the declaration  should state  (insert appropriate language from
brackets) :

          "The selected remedy is  protective of human health and the
          environment, attains Federal  and State requirements that
          are applicable or relevant and appropriate to this
          remedial action  [or  "a waiver can  be justified for the
          Federal or State applicable or relevant and appropriate
          requirement that will not be  met"], and is cost-effective.
          This remedy satisfies the statutory preference for
          remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity,
          mobility or volume as a  principal  element and utilizes
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not- been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      6-4
           permanent solutions and alternative treatment  (or resource
           recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable."

If the remedy will  leave hazardous substances onsite above health-based
levels,  the  declaration should include the following:

           "Because  this remedy will result in hazardous  substances
           remaining onsite above health-based levels, a  review will be
           conducted within five years after commencement of remedial
           action  to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
           protection of human health and the environment."

If the remedy will  not  leave hazardous substances onsite above health-based
levels,  the  Declaration should include the following:

           "Because  this remedy will not result in hazardous substances
           remaining onsite above health-based levels, the five-year facility
           review  will not apply to this action."

     6.2.4.2 Sample Text of Declaration Concerning a Remedy that Does  Not
              Meet  the  Statutory Preference for Treatment as a Principal
              Element

     When  the selected  remedy for a site involves little or no treatment  to
reduce toxicity,  mobility,  or volume of contaminants, that is, treatment  is
not utilized to address the principal threat(s)  posed by the site, CERCLA
requires a statement explaining why such a remedial action was not chosen.
The declaration in  this case should state (insert appropriate language  from
brackets):

           "The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
           environment,  attains Federal and State requirements that
           are applicable or relevant and appropriate to this
           remedial  action,  [or "a waiver can be justified for the
           Federal or State applicable or relevant and appropriate
           requirement that will not be met"], and is cost-effective.
           This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
           treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the
           maximum extent practicable for this site.  However,
           because treatment of the principal threats of the site was
           not found to  be practicable [or "within the limited scope
           of this action"],  this remedy does not satisfy the
           statutory preference for treatment as a principal element
           of the  remedy."

The above  statement must be followed by the rationale for this finding  based
on the specific factors used to determine that treatment is either
impracticable or  not within the limited scope of this action.  In addition, a
brief statement that past or future operable units will meet the statutory
preference for treatment should be included when appropriate.
  This review draft is intended Cor internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      6-5
     If the remedy will leave hazardous substances onsite above health-based
levels, the Declaration also should include the following:

          "Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances
          remaining onsite above  health-based levels, a review will be
          conducted within five years after commencement of remedial
          action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
          protection of human health and the environment."

If the remedy will not leave hazardous substances onsite above health-based
levels, the Declaration should include the following:

          "Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances
         • remaining onsite above  health-based levels, the five-year facility
          review will not apply to this action."

     6.2.5  Signature and State Concurrence

     All ROD Declarations must be signed and dated by the EPA AA of OSWER or
RA,  When the State is the lead agency for developing the ROD, the State
Director should be a signator on  the ROD,  and at a. minimum, the State should
provide a letter of concurrence.   When the State is the support agency, the
State need not sign the ROD, but  a letter of concurrence from the State should
be included in the administrative record.

6.3  Key Elements of the Deci.si.on S*™**airv

     The Decision Summary, the second component of the ROD, should provide an
overview of the site-specific factors and analysis conducted that led to
selection of the remedy for the operable unit or site.  In general, this
section of the ROD should provide a brief description of the site, the
alternatives evaluated, and the analysis leading to the final remedy
selection.  The Decision Summary  may cite the administrative record in support
of its conclusions, as appropriate.  Appendix E provides a suggested outline
for the Decision Summary.

     Although some of the information presented in the Decision Summary is
similar to that presented in the  Declaration, this section discusses the
topics in a greater level of detail.  The following information should be
included:

         Site name, location, and description;
         Site history and enforcement activities;
         Highlights of community  participation;
         Scope and role of operable unit or response action;
         Site characteristics;
         Summary of site risks;
         Documentation of significant changes;
         Description of alternatives;
         Summary of comparative analysis of alternatives;
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      6-6
      •    Selected remedy;  and
      •    Statutory determinations

      6.3.1   Site Name,  Location, and Description

      This section should be a brief description which provides  the reader with
basic knowledge  of site location and the actual or potential  impact of the
site  on its  surroundings.   The site description should include  the following
information:

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

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

     Use of  maps  and charts is encouraged for this section.

      6.3.2   Site  History and Enforceaent Activities

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

      •    The history of activities at the site that have led to the
          current problems,  such as manufacturing activities  or disposal
          of hazardous  substances;

      •    The history of site investigations or remedial actions
          conducted to  date under CERCLA,  as well as under other
          environmental authorities,  such as RCRA, CWA, CAA or  State
          authorities;  and

      •    The history of CERCLA enforcement actions at the site,
          including:                                         .

               Whether  a special notice has been issued to
               PRPs;
               If a moratorium has commenced;
               Results  of  negotiations, if they can be
               summarized;  and
               Whether  a law suit has been filed regarding
               cleanup  of  the site.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It haa not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                       OSWER "Directive 9355.3-02.

                                      6-7
 If a law suit has been filed, the court and docket  number should be provided.
 This discussion also should state whether  technical discussions with PRFs are
 summarized in the administrative record (see  the  Interim Guidance on
 Administrative Records OSWER Directive #9833.1A for more detail).

      6.3.3  Comnunity Relations

      This section should briefly state how the minimum requirements for public
 participation in §113(k)(2)(B)(i-v) were satisfied  during the remedial action
 process.   The requirements are to provide:

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

      A reasonable opportunity to comment and  provide information
      regarding the [proposed] plan  [and RI/FS report];

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

      A response to each of the significant comments,  criticisms, and new
      data submitted in written or oral presentations;  and

      A statement of the basis and purpose  of  the  selected action [e.g.,
     . the ROD]."

      The lead agency may also include a description of any other major public
 participation activities in this section,  although  this description should be
 brief.          .

      6.3.4  Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action

      This section should discuss how the operable unit or response action fits
 into the overall site strategy (e.g., this ROD addresses the second of three
 planned activities at the site - the first addressed alternative water supply,
 this addresses contaminated ground  water;  and a third will deal with
 contaminated soils.)  The discussion in this  section should focus on how the
•response action will address the principal threats  at the site and how the
 response action fits into the overall strategy for  remediating the site.

      6.3.5  Site Characteristics

      This section should provide a  summary of the assessments made during the
 RI that characterize site-specific  threats.   The  site characterization
 includes information about the contaminants at the  site, the routes of
 exposure, the. population and environmental areas  at risk, and any factors that
 may affect the implementability of  remedial actions at the site.  If the site
 assessment was previously addressed in another document, the results of the
   This review draft is intended for internal agency review only. It has not been formally released by the
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not  at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      6-8
assessment  should be  summarized and referenced.  Factors that  should be
highlighted in this section are: •

      •   All known or suspected sources of contamination;

      •   Types of contamination and affected media (description of
         quantity, types,  and concentration of hazardous substances
         present  and  their mobility,  toxicity, and volume; lateral and
         vertical extent  of contamination, and potential surface  and
         subsurface pathways of migration; and

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

     The discussion in these previous sections should be brief, with the
information presented graphically,  as appropriate.   Maps illustrating the
location of units and contamination and tables that list types of contaminants
and concentrations can be  used.  Appendix F presents sample tables and maps.

     6.3.6  Summary of Site Risks

     The discussion in this section should summarize the results  of  the
baseline risk  assessment  conducted for the site.   This summary should be
prepared from  the risk assessment  discussion in the RI/FS report  where
evaluation  of  the potential threat to 'human health and the environment is
estimated for  the site assuming no remedial action is taken.  Factors that
should be highlighted in  this section include:

     •   selection of contaminants (i.e.,  indicator chemicals) of concern
         for the  site;.                                                 .

     •   results  of the exposure assessment in'cluding pathways of
         exposure, characteristics of potential receptors, and extent of
         exposure;

     •   results  of the toxicity assessment conducted on the contaminants
         of concern;  and

     •   summarize risk characterization,  the potential for adverse  '
         health or environmental effects based on carcinogenic risks,
         noncarcinogenic  risks and environmental risks.

     The analytical methods used in making the risk calculations  also should
be noted in this  section.

     6.3.7  Documentation of Significant Changes

     To fulfill the requirements of §117(b), the ROD will need to document  and
discuss the reasons for any significant changes that have been made  to the
selected alternative  from the time it was originally proposed in  the Proposed
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It ha* not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      6-9
Plan and RI/FS  report,  to final adoption of  the  alternative in the ROD  (see
Chapter 5 for a complete discussion on Fre-ROD significant changes).  This
discussion should provide the following information:

     •   Identification of the preferred alternative  in the Proposed
         Plan;

     •   Whether any significant changes have  occurred;  and

     •   If significant changes have occurred, the reasons for those
         changes.                                   .    .

     6.3.8  Description of Alternatives

     Eachalgernatiye should be summarized by  pjeo^ciA1jny._desrjd^£igi>s of all
       ^'e JnjJtiaJL_w^3j:.e_jnana&ejnent—dygpff^r** to the final disp_osal of
reHTduals.  The foTTowirig factors should be  included  in the descriptions.

     1.  Specific containment components of  the  waste management process
         (e.g.,  source control, partial removal,  treatment, or placement in  an
         existing unit) should be described.   The description should address:

         •   the type_and quantity of waste  to be contained;

         •   quality of untreated waste and  treatment residuals to be
             cTmtaTSeoTTtT'elflls of the type  or degree.of risks they pose; and

         •   the typejaf closure that will be  implemented.

     2.  Specific waste management factors associated with the remedial
         process should be sunmiarized.  Specific treatment components to
         describe include:

         •   treatment technologies that will  be used;

         •   type and volume of waste treated;

         •   contaminated media addressed;

         •   process sizing;

         •   primary treatment levels (e.g., BOAT, percentage or order  of
             magnitude of reductions expected);

         •   residual levels (e.g., NPDES, delisting);

         •   implementation requirements;

         •   assumptions, limitations, uncertainties; and
  This review draft'is intended for internal agency review only. It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency and should not at this stage  be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                       OSWER Directive 9355.3-.02

                                      6-10
          •    ground-water classification.

     3.   The  malor ARARs and "to be considereds"  (TBCs) being met/utilized for
          the  specific components of the waste management  process.'   The
          description should summarize how the specific components  of the waste
          management approach will meet the major ARARs and TBCs.   For example,
          a description should address how the alternative will meet Subtitle C
          Closure  requirements if the alternative includes disposal/placement
          of RCRA  hazardous waste in a landfill.  The major ARARs will
          typically include:

          •    RCRA Subtitle C
                  Closure (landfill or closure by removal)
                  Subpart F Ground-Water Monitoring
                  Location Standards
                  Minimum Technology
                  Subpart 0 Incineration
                  Land Disposal Restrictions
          •    RCRA Subtitle D
          •    Clean Water Act
                  Federal Water Quality Criteria
                  POTW requirements
                  NPDES standards
          •    SDWA
                  MCLs
          •    TSCA
          •    CAA
          •    State Standards.

     6.3.9  Sunmary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

     This section should provide the rationale for selection  of the final
remedy by comparing the strengths and weaknesses of each  alternative.   This  is
accomplished  by evaluating the alternatives with respect  to the nine
evaluation criteria:

         Overall  protection of human health and the environment;
         Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
         requirements;
         Long-term effectiveness and permanence;
         Reduction of toxicity,  mobility, or volume;
         Short-term effectiveness;
         Implamentability;
         Cost;
     ^  TBCs are non-promulgated advisories, criteria or guidance  issued by
Federal or State government that are not legally enforceable  standards.   EPA
and the State may agree  to  follow the TBCs, because they are  pertinent  to the
alternatives being considered to remediate the site.
  This review draft io intended for intern*! agency review only.  It baa not been formally releaaod by tbe
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      6-11
      •    State  acceptance;  and
      •    Community acceptance.

Under each  evaluation criterion,  a brief summary should be provided of the.
relative  performance of the alternatives with respect to  the  criterion,  with
the express purpose of supporting the rationale for the selected alternative.
This comparison will be conducted by highlighting the advantages and
disadvantages of  each alternative with respect to the evaluation criteria.
The results of  this analysis should provide the rationale for the selection of
the final remedy  by highlighting why the selected remedy provides the best
balance among tradeoffs between .the criteria.  This analysis  can be drawn from
the summary of  alternatives presented in the detailed analysis section of the
RI/FS report:

     Based  on this analysis, the remedy shall be selected considering the
following:

      •    a  comparative analysis of the alternatives conducted using the
          nine evaluation criteria;

      •    the specific factors within the nine criteria that are most
          relevant to the circumstances at the site; and

      •    the overall implementability of each alternative.

     6.3.10 The  Selected Remedy

     The  remainder of the Decision Summary focuses on the selected remedy.
This section of the ROD should identify the selected remedy and briefly
discuss:              .

      •    the risk level to  be attained at the conclusion of the response
          action;

      •    the lead agency's  rationale for making this determination; and

      •  l  the points of compliance for the media .being addressed (e.g.,
          ground water).

      6.3.11 Statutory Determinations

     Once the remedy is identified, the remaining section of  the ROD Decision
Summary should  focus on how the selected remedy satisfies the statutory
requirements of §121 of CERCLA.  The remedy selected by the lead agency, in
consultation with the support agency, must:

      1.   Be protective of human health and the environment;

     2.   Attain ARARs (or provide grounds for invoking a waiver);
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It baa not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed-to represent agency policy.

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

                                      6-12
      3.  Be  cost-effective;

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

      5.  Address  whether the preference for treatment that reduces  toxicity,
         mobility,  or volume as a principal element is satisfied, or provide
         .an  explanation in the ROD as to why it is not satisfied.

      A brief description of how the selected remedy satisfies each  of  the
statutory requirements must be provided.  These statutory requirements and the
key information that  should be summarized for each finding are highlighted
below.

      Protection of Human Health and the Environment

      The selected remedy should be described in terms of how it will provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment through treatment,
engineering, and/or institutional controls.  Specifically, the remedy should
be described in terms of the existing or potential risks posed by the site or
operable unit and how they will be adequately reduced,  eliminated or
controlled by the response action.  In addition,  a statement that the
implementation of the selected remedy will not pose unacceptable short-term
risks or cross-media  impacts should be included.

      Attainment of the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

      This section should include the following:.

      •   A statement  as to whether the selected remedy will attain  the
         ARARs of Federal,  or more stringent,  promulgated State
         environmental and public health laws or whether a waiver is
         being used.   If a waiver is being invoked, the grounds for doing
         so  should be summarized in this section.

      •   A list and brief description of the ARARs that will be attained
         by  the selected remedy.   This list should be organized according
         to  chemical-specific (indicator chemicals),  location-specific,
         and action-specific ARARs.   It should also distinguish between
         the applicable versus the relevant and appropriate requirements.

      •   A list and brief description of the TBCs (e.g.,  policies,
         criteria,  and guidances) being utilized and a justification of
         their use  in the decision-making process.

The following are examples of the level of detail in which Federal and State
ARARs should be described for the selected remedy:
  This review draft is intended for intamal agency review only. • It baa not bam formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                     6-13
     1.  RCRA land disposal requirements  in 40 CFR 264.310 Subpart G which
         address the requirements  for  closing a landfill with waste in place.
         [Relevant and Appropriate]

     2.  Permitting requirements for discharge of dredged or fill material in
         the Clean Water Act, 40 CFR section 230.   [Relevant and Appropriate]

     3.  RCRA corrective action program requirements in 40 CFR 264.100
         Subpart F which address the ground-water monitoring requirements of a
         corrective action program.   [Relevant and Appropriate]

     4.  Michigan air pollution control air use approval requirements in
         Michigan Air Pollution Control Commission Act (Act No. 348, R336,
         Part 2) which outlines permitting requirements to install, construct,
         reconstruct, relocate, or alter  any process,  fuel-burning equipment
         or control equipment which may be a source of an air contaminant.
         [Relevant and Appropriate]

Cost Effectiveness

     This section describes the lead agency's judgment that the selected
remedy affords overall effectiveness proportional to its costs such that the
remedy represents a reasonable value for  the money.  This section should state
how, when the relationship between cost and overall effectiveness of the
selected remedy are viewed in light of the relationship between cost and
overall effectiveness afforded by  the  other alternatives, the selected remedy
appears to be cost-effective.

Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment (or Resource
Recovery) Technologies to the Maximum  Extent Practicable

     This section describes the rationale by which the remedy was selected,
explaining how the remedy was the  alternative determined to provide the best
balance among tradeoffs between the nine  evaluation criteria.

     The final remedy is selected  among protective, ARAR-attaining (or waiver-
worthy) , cost-effective alternatives by a determination of which option best
balances the inevitable tradeoffs  among the alternatives in terms of long-term
effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume
afforded through treatment, short-term effectiveness,  implementability, and
cost, also weighing the statutory  preference for treatment as a principal
element, and considering support agency and community acceptance.  This
section of the ROD should discuss  why  the selected remedy was determined to
provide the best combination of attributes in terms of these criteria.  This
discussion should communicate why  the  advantages offered by the selected
remedy were determined to be most  appropriate for the site.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has net been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                       OSWER Dtrective 9355.3-02

                                      6-14
Preference  for Treatment as a Principal Element

     A description of whether or not the selected remedy satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies employing  treatment that permanently and
significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous substances
as a principal element should be included.   This  preference is satisfied when
treatment is  used to address principal threats posed by the site (e.g., hot
spots in a  landfill) . .  If a remedy is selected which does not satisfy this
preference, the statute requires an explanation as  to why.   In some cases,
this will involve explaining the reason treatment of the principal threat(s)
was not found to be practicable.  In the case of  operable units of very
limited scope (e.g., control of plume migration),  one must explain how the
operable unit will not definitively address  any of the principal threats posed
by the site,  but how past actions did or future actions will address those
threats .
6.4  The Respons'ivgt»gss S'""T»a
     The Responsiveness Summary serves two purposes.   First,  it provides lead
agency decisionmakers with information about community preferences regarding
both the remedial alternatives and general concerns about the site.  Second,
it demonstrates  to the public how their comments were  taken into account as an
integral part  of the decision-making process.

     Guidance  on preparing Responsiveness Summaries is available in Community
Relations in Super fund:   A Handbook (OSWER Directive 9230. 0-3B).  That
document details the process of preparing the Summary  and includes a sample
responsiveness summary.     ,-
  Ibis review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It baa not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

               THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE RECORD OF DECISION
     The roles  and responsibilities of  lead and support agency personnel in
developing  the  ROD are summarized in  this  chapter.  Procedures to  facilitate
timely preparation,  review, and final approval of the ROD also are presented.
Finally, dispute resolution procedures  and the roles of other federal  agencies
in federal  facility cleanup activities  are discussed.

Overview

     As with  the Proposed Plan, the lead agency has primary responsibility for
preparing the ROD and coordinating with the support agency(ies) and other lead
agency program  offices to attain concurrence.   As previously discussed,
designation of  the lead agency will be  specified in the SMOA or the CA.
Typically,  the  lead agency preparing  the RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan
will prepare  the ROD,  although this can vary from site to site.  Although the
roles of EPA  and States may vary at any given site, the EPA retains final
authority for selecting all response  actions pursuant to §§104, 106,  120, and
122 of CERCLA.
  Prepare
   Draft
   ROD
   Brief
   Lead
  Agency
Management
  on ROD
  Brief
AA/RA/SD
 Publish
  Notice
   and
Make ROD
 Available
 to Public
7.1  Roleg  and Respo"**ibi.lJLti.B3 of Lead Agency
     and Support Agency

     The responsibilities pertaining  to lead or support agency as  outlined
below will  apply to either the State  or EPA,  except where specifically noted.

     7.1.1   Lead Agency

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

     1.  Preparing the draft ROD;

     2.  Briefing lead agency upper management on the ROD;

     3.  Submitting the draft ROD to  other lead agency program
         offices for their review;
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                       7-2
     4.   Submitting the ROD to the support agency for its concurrence
          on the selected remedy;

     5.   Reviewing the support agency's comments  and modifying the
          selected remedy as appropriate;

     6.   Revising the ROD;

     7.   Submitting the ROD to the RA or AA of OSWER for signature if
          a  state or a federal agency is the lead  agency,  that lead
          agency and the EPA must sign. ; and

     8.   Publishing notice  of the ROD and making  it  available to the public.

     7.1.2   Support Agency

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

     1.   Reviewing and commenting on the draft ROD;

     2.   Briefing support agency upper management on the  ROD;

     3 .   Conducting program review by other support  agency offices ;

     4.   When  the State is  the support agency, it must at a minimum
          provide the lead agency with a written declaration of
          concurrence.   If the State is the lead agency,  the SD should
          sign  the ROD and at a minimum must provide  a letter of
          concurrence;  and

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

     In general,  the support agency should have an adequate opportunity to
review the draft ROD prior  to its adoption.  Ten working  days is the
recommended  period of review,  if not otherwise specified  in the SMOA or CA.
     7.2  Select t'pfi «-he Remedy and Signing the ROD

     For all, Federal -lead actions under CERCLA §§104 or  106,  and 122, EPA
selects the  remedy  and the State is asked to concur.   For  State -lead remedial
actions pursuant  to CERCLA §104 where the State has been given the lead
responsibility  for  developing the ROD, the State may prepare  the ROD, thus
recommending a  remedy.   EPA is asked to concur with and  adopt this remedy.
The designation of  the State or EPA as the lead agency for developing the ROD
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      7-3
should be specified  in the  SMOA or CA.8  All RODs for remedial actions
conducted pursuant to  §§104,  106,  and 122 of CERCLA, however, will be signed
either by the EPA RA or by  the AA (OSWER),  as determined by EPA Headquarters
in the delegation process.  The State may also be a signator, as appropriate.

     Remedy Selection  for State-Lead Enforcement Actions

     Not all remedial  activities at National Priorities List (NPL) sites will
be conducted under CERCLA §§104,  106 or 122 authorities.  A State may take
action at an NPL site  under its own remedial authority, commonly known as a
State-lead enforcement action.   The degree of EPA involvement in the remedy
selection process at these  sites should be established between the EPA and
State in the SMOA or CA.  EPA may choose to concur with a remedy selected for
such a site, although  such  concurrence is discretionary.  Further guidance on
State-lead enforcement actions will be available in The Interim Final Guidance
Package on Funding CERCLA State Enforcement Actions at NPL Sites now being
prepared.

7.3  Dispute Resolution

     Continued interaction  between lead and support agencies throughout the
ROD process will ensure that  final agreement on the ROD is accomplished in a
timely manner.  There  will  be instances, however, where outstanding issues may
arise between the lead and  support agencies.   The draft guidance on preparing
SMOAs specifies a dispute resolution process chat may be utilized by the State
and EPA if conflicts should arise.

     Chapter 3 of this guidance discusses a dispute resolution process in. the
proposed revisions to  the NCP.   Those resolution procedures could be used if
none are specified in  the SMOA.

7.4  Role of Other EPA and  State Progr*™ Offices

     Each agency should establish appropriate procedures and timeframes for
intra-agency review  of RODs.   An agency may need to coordinate with a number
of program offices to  ensure  that technical and legal aspects of the ROD are
defensible.  Regional  and State legal counsels should be involved early in the
remedy selection process to assist in identification of ARARs, to ensure that
all enforcement-sensitive issues are presented properly, and to ensure that
the ROD is legally defensible.   The Office of Regional Counsel's concurrence
should be sought prior to presenting the ROD to the RA or AA unless
outstanding issues exist that must be resolved by the RA or AA.
     °  Further  guidance  on State and EPA roles will be available in the
Interim Guidance on Assessing State and Regional Capabilities for Remedial
Decision-making  now being prepared.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                       7-4
7.5  Roles and Responsibilities of Other Federal Entities

     For  the sites under their jurisdiction,  a Federal agency will be
responsible for preparing the draft ROD in accordance with Chapter 6 and
carrying  out the lead agency responsibilities specified in Chapter 7.   The
Federal agency will prepare the draft  ROD,  taking into consideration new
information and comments received  during the  public comment period,  and will
submit the draft ROD to the EPA (and where designated, the State)  for the EPA
Administrator's written approval.   The Administrator's signature will
constitute final "adoption" of the  ROD.9  The Federal agency shall publish a
notice of the ROD pursuant to §117(d)  and make it available to  the public
prior to  commencing the response action.
     9  A ROD prepared by a Federal agency  and the process by which  it  was
developed will be  subject to a "consistency test."  This test is applied to
all Federal  facility response actions at NPL sites taken pursuant  to §120.
The test requires  these response actions to be consistent with the
requirements of  CERCLA, as amended; the NCP;  and relevant guidance,  to  the
extent practicable.
  This review draft is intended for Internal agency review only. It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage  be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                         POST-ROD SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
8.1  Overview

     After signature of the ROD (or other decision document),  new information
may be  received from the public or generated by the lead agency that
significantly affects the remedy selected in the ROD.  The new information may
be a result of testing or refinement done during remedial design or remedial
action  (RD/RA) or a result of enforcement decisions being made that include a
different remedy than that in the ROD.  When it is determined  that these
changes represent si^mlfJLeant differences Erogthe remedy in the ROD,  the lead
agency  will issue an "expiana^6iriff™sTglirfTca^                      for public
comment,  prepare a Responsiveness Summary, and make both the ESD and
        iveness Summary available in the administrative record.   In
        an amended ROD will be required.  This chapter summarizes the
requirements for addressing post-ROD changes, describes the  analysis necessary
to determine such changes, and describes the procedures that must be followed
to address such changes.

)     There are two general situations where an ESD would be  issued by the lead
agency.   The<1ET^SJsituation is when the remedial action that  is actually
beingimjolemented under §§104 or 120, enforcement action under llOlff^or
                       decree under §§106 or 122 dj.gf.elrs si^ificangly from the
                              The significant changes may be  changesto a
                         that does not alter the overall waste  management
approach documented in the ROD.  For example, a change in an ARAR,  or changes
to aspects of the timing, cost, or implementability of a remedy could be made
without changing the overall remedy itself (e.g., thermal destruction would be
implemented over a 12 month period rather than the 6 month period originally
specified in the ROD). . Significant changes also could represent fundamental
changes to a remedy such as a complete change in the remedial  technology being
used (e.g., changing from containment to thermal destruction).   Significant
changes to a component of a remedy and fundamental changes to  a remedy will be
the focus of this chapter.

                 situation where an ESD would be necessary includes tho_se__few
cases where EPA reserves a decision on the_jspecifications of a component of a
remedial action"^^r^7RA.  For" example^, "a ROD maV specif really reserve^ the
decisTonaon;:^^f*^p^o1f landfill (i.e., RCRA Subtitle C or  D)  to construct
on-site until further testing is done on the treatment residuals.  Once the
lead agency determines whether the treatment residuals can be  managed as a
solid or hazardous waste, the public must be informed of the type of landfill
being constructed and given access to the information that the agency used in
making  the decision about the landfill.  These situations should be analyzed
as if they were si^^ficantchanges to a component of a remedy,  and the public
participation proce^ul:¥s^W^a&rished in this guidance for Post-ROD changes to
components of remedies should be followed.
   This review draft ia intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                       8-2
 8.2   ftftmi'I regent to
      The  mandate to address post-ROO changes  is  provided by CERCLA §117 (c),
which states:

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

      The  statute's emphasis on "significant"  differences indicates that not
all differences between the ROD and the final remedial action,  enforcement
action, settlement,  or consent decree are required to be addressed in an ESD.
A review  of  the legislative history indicates that the s4gnlflcAn£__djffgrejise s
provision in CERCLA ^llT^Qwas not intendedajo_J>Aa=unrifea^snjb^^            on
                °°
   ^
diYerences ha^bjeen^sta.blished: only differences that pertHfrtt) selection
of"remedydEcisTons^(8mu^gtErflcant .  If significant differences do arise,
these must be  documented in an ESD.  Although minor differences do not have to
be documented  in an ESD,  such differences should be documented in the post-
decision document file. 10

8.3  Categories  of Post-ROD Changes

     Following the signing of the ROD (or other decision  document) for a site,
the lead agency  should be alert to new information that suggests changes to
the selected remedy may be necessary or appropriate.  New information or
significant changes should be evaluated to determine into which of the
following categories of differences they fall.  Exhibit 8-1  shows a flow chart
of the process for analyzing and documenting significant  differences.

     8.3.1  Non-Significant Differences

     Non- significant differences fall within the
                                                              __
                  the  RD/gAjengineer ing process .  Such dif f erencestypT!cally
will be minor  techulcar^or" engineering changes that do not  significantly
affect the overall  scope,  performance, or cost of the alternative.
         The post-decision document file is the RD/RA case  file that generally
includes cost,  liability,  and other relevant information  generated during the
RD/RA process.  The  file is not part of the §113 administrative record for
selection of remedy.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.. It has not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
 POST-ROD CHANGES
Subtral Oocumanlalun ol
Hon- signiicanl Change*
. to Post Daemon
Document*!
H
]
Piepai* Opbonal
RO/RAFeaShoel

I

                                                                                          • Add to
     Is He
   Sqrakcam
   Change*
Fundamental Chai
 c* a Change U a
 Componenlol t»
 Ftemndy
Lead Agency
 Analyzes
 Inkmraton
Horn RO/RA
  Piocasa
Fundamental
  Chang*
 Scop*
• Pertmnanc*
• Cod
 olRamady
 inliOO
   Change k> \
      •    l-»
  [Connoneial
 Ftacad
• Pi&kc Camnenl
 an ESO
• Piepa*
 RespanaMnast
 Sunmaiy
• Piep«* Amended
 ROD
                                                                          • Piepaie ESO
                                                                          • Add to AdmfraslnkM Heoad
                                                                          • Pubkc Comment on ESO
                                                                          • Piepo* RKoonsiMnes* Summary on
                                                                            ESO

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

                                      8-4
      Non- significant differences should be documented  in  the  post-decision
document  file;  an ESD,  however, is not required.  The  documentation of non-
significant differences are not part of the §113 administrative  record for a
site.   If  the  lead agency chooses, non- significant changes to the  selected
remedy  also can be documented in a Remedial Design Fact Sheet, an  optional
public  participation document often used at Super fund  sites.   These fact
sheets  may inform citizens of the lead agency's schedule  for  future public
meetings and any design clarifications made to the response action.

      8.3.2  Significant Differences to a Conponent of  a Remedy
     New  inf ormatign_r^^^e^djuir^gthe RD/RA process could cause  the  lead
agency to make Changes  to thecoppone^fE§°:^oTE=flBK'd±e^ , for example changes to
ARARs, timing, cost ,  or implement ability ,  wtfiTe "keeping the overall remedy the
same.  When the  changes to_the compp.nents of a reme,d^L^are^Aigni£icant .  they
must be_^jo_cj4men£e3^in«^in>,ESD .^ In addition, the administrative record must be
supplemented with  the ESD and the information that led to making the changes
to the components  of  the remedy.   The ESD must provide a sufficient level of
detail for the public to understand the change that is being made to the
remedy and to comment upon it. The ESD should describe the remedy as it was
originally specified  in the ROD,  describe the significant differences between
the selected remedy and the proposed action, and describe the new information
or changes that  led to  the change being proposed.  The ESD also should  state
that the  public  may comment on the ESD, and give details concerning when  and
where public comments should be made.

     The  following public participation activities also must be conducted by
the lead  agency.

    . •    A notice  of  availability and brief description of the ESD  must
          be published in a local  newspaper of general circulation.

     •    The ESD must be made available in the administrative record along
          with supporting information and analysis.

     •    A public  comment period  to last not less than 21 days during
          which written  and oral comments on the ESD will be accepted.   An
          optional  public meeting  may be held.

     •    A Responsiveness Summary is prepared to address each of the
          significant  comments, criticisms, and new relevant information
          submitted during the comment period and placed in the
          administrative record.

     Throughout  the period when the ESD is being prepared and public comments
are being received, work on implementing the remedy can continue.   The  Agency
believes  that continued implementation of the remedy is acceptable  in this
case because the public previously was afforded the opportunity to  comment on
the overall remedy (e.g.  thermal  destruction, in-situ vitrification,
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                      OSWEK Directive  9355.3-02
                                                            •

                                      8-5
containment) during  the  comment period on the Proposed Plan and  the RI/FS
report.          -

     8.3.3\Fundaneatal  Differences that Require Amendment of the ROD      / —,
          _J^™T  •                                                  r?/a
     In aQrewjsase's,  the RD/RA process may give rise to new information that
makes implementation ^f^JbA_remedyin the ROD an unviable option.  If the  lead
agency makes fundamental alte^atl^^^^^S^Igj^^^^g^^^^^ffitented  in a  ROD
as a rejsuJLt^ftf^ejw^inf^rjiaj^ion (e.g.,  changesfFo^^a^^fie^ffiar^treatment remedy
to a containment remedy),  theROD must be amended.  Where the ROD being
amended addresses the  response^ actfTStff o"r~tfie=aentire site or a series of
operable units  (e.g.,  soil,  surface water, and ground water), only that part
of the ROD specific  to the response action being fundamentally changed needs
to be amended.  RD/RA  activities on other operable units or response  actions
not being modified,  therefore,  may continue during the ROD amendment  process.


     Where there are  fundamental changes, the lead agency should prepare an
ESD that is similar  to a new Proposed Plan and that:  describes  the original
remedy discussed in  the  ROD;  identifies the new information or changes that
have or will lead to a change in the remedy; explains why the previous
selected remedy is no  longer preferred; and describes the alternative(s)
considered for  implementation.   After public comment,, an amended ROD  will  be
prepared that documents  the analysis that led to selection of the new remedy
and includes a new Responsiveness Summary that addresses comments received on
the new remedy chosen  for  a site.

     The following public  participation activities also must be  conducted  by
the lead agency.           <

     •   A notice of  availability and brief description of the ESD must be
         published in  a  local newspaper of general circulation.

     •   The ESD must  be made available in the administrative record  along
         with supporting information and analysis.

     •   A public comment  period is to be held lasting not less  than  21 days
         during which  written and oral comments on the ESD will  be accepted.

     •   An opportunity  for a public meeting must be provided.

     •   A transcript  should be kept of comments received at any public
         meeting(s).

     •   A Responsiveness  Summary is prepared to address each of the
         significant  comments,  criticisms, and new relevant information
         submitted during  the comment period.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It haa not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      8-6
      «   A notice  of availability of the amended ROD or other  decision
         document  must be published in a local newspaper of  general
         circulation.

      •   The  amended ROD is placed in the administrative record.

     Although the  new remedy cannot be implemented until after the  amended ROD
is signed,  data  collection and testing to support the new remedy may be
conducted  while  the  ROD amendment process is being completed.   In addition,
where there are  other discrete actions (e.g., a series of operable  units in a
single ROD) occurring at the site, work on those response actions not affected
by the change should continue.

8.4  Exaaples of Significant Differences

     To develop  some specific examples of the three types of differences that
may occur  after  the  ROD has been signed (i.e., non- significant differences,
significant differences that must be described in an explanation of
differences ,  and significant differences that require an amendment  to the
ROD), the  information in the sample Declaration for the ROD  for the EIO site
presented  in  Appendix D of this guidance is used.  The major components of the
remedy include:

         Excavation  and treatment by incineration,  disposal  in a secure
         landfill  on- site
         Address 28,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil
         Restoration of water resource through air stripping
         Provision of alternate water supply
         Capital cost:   $4,666,000
         Implementation time:   12 to 15 months
     Non-si.gni.f tc8*"!: Difference

     Example 1

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

     Example 2

     The lead agency determines that a contaminant plume has migrated  1,500
feet outside the original  boundaries of the site.  As a result of the
migration, the boundaries  of the site are enlarged to incorporate the  plume.
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                      OSWER pirectlve  9355.3-02

                                      8-7
This is a non-significant difference.  Explanation of the boundary  change
should be included  in the post-decision document file and may be summarized in
the RD/RA fact sheet,  if issued.

     Significant Difference to a Comoonent of the Remedy
     In the process  of implementing the remedy, the lead agency conducts
additional sampling  and determines that the volume of soil to be  incinerated
is 50 percent larger than estimated in the ROD.  As a result, a proportional
increase in capital  costs of the remedy is realized.  The capital cost now is
$7 million, and the  amount of time necessary to incinerate the additional
soils adds three years to the implementation time estimated in the ROD.

     Because the scope and cost of the remedy have changed substantially from
the specifications of the remedy in the ROD, an ESD is prepared to enable  the
public to comment on the changes.   Remedial design continues, because the  lead
agency determines the public already has had an adequate opportunity to
comment on the overall remedy (i.e. incineration and disposal in  an on-site
landfill) .
     The lead agency reaches a settlement with the Responsible Parties  for  a
site that adopts the remedy selected in the ROD but delays commencement of  the
water restoration procedures for one year.  .The lead agency determines  that
this is a significant  difference that alters the short-term performance of  the
remedy.  The lead agency  prepares an ESD documenting the significant
difference from the ROD and the specific reasons for the change .  The ESD and
consent decree are issued concurrently for public comment.

     Example 3

     The lead agency decides to use carbon adsorption rather than air
stripping to conduct the  water restoration activities.  The basic pump  and
treat remedy remains unaltered, and the performance level specified in  the  ROD
will still be met by the  new technology.  The lead agency prepares  an ESD so
that the public is given  the opportunity to comment on the new technology to
be used.  No amendment to the ROD is necessary, and RD can continue.
     Significant Difference that ^"i*^a"ental3.y Alters the Remedy
     Requiring Amendment of the ROD

     Example 1

     The lead agency  determines that incineration capacity cannot be  secured
in the necessary time period for remediating the site.  The lead agency,
therefore, proposes to use bioremediation rather than thermal destruction to
address the contaminated soil.   This new remedy fundamentally alters  the
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It baa not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.-

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

                                       8-8
remedy  in the ROD,, and an amended ROD must be prepared.  RD for the source
control remedy is halted because the  thermal destruction remedy is no longer
feasible.   However,  data collection to support the design of the
bioremediation option and RD/RA on the ground-water remedy  may proceed.

     Example  2

     The  lead agency negotiates a consent decree with a Responsible Party that
proposes  to implement a remedy other  than that selected in  the ROD.  The PRFs
propose to  do in-situ vitrification,  rather than thermal destruction, which
was the selected remedy in the ROD.   Because the public has not had an
opportunity to comment on the proposed remedy in the consent decree, an ESD is
prepared  proposing the ROD amendment  prior to the consent decree being signed.
Remedial  design cannot commence until the consent decree and amended ROD are
signed.   The  comment periods for the  ESD  and consent decree are held at the
same time.  An amended ROD will be prepared that identifies the remedy from
the consent decree and includes a Responsiveness Summary.   The ESD, consent
decree, and amended ROD are included  in the administrative  record.
  Ibis review draft is intended fox internal agency review only.  It has net been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                                OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                        APPENDIX A


                                 SAMPLE PROPOSED PLAN

                                 IN FACT SHEET FORMAT
This review draft ia intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
Site Background

A HISTORY OF SEPTIC
WASTE DISPOSAL

  Since 1947, the EIO Industrial Com-
pany has disposed of septic waste at its
plant located at 129 Franklin Street in
Nameless.Tennessee. In the late 1960s,
the company also began to accept ran-
dom shipments  of hazardous  waste.
Wastes were disposed  in eight buried
unlined lagoons  and  in thirteen aban-
doned storage tanks at the site.

  The tanks and lagoons subsequently
leaked or were backfilled, and their con-
tents have contaminated soils on the site.
Both the municipal well, located a mile
from the  site, and several residential
wells, located within a half-mile, also have
been contaminated by wastes from the
site.

  The site was placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in  1982. Between
1984 and 1986, the EIO Industrial Com-
pany conducted  a Remedial Investiga-
tion and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) under
the guidance of the TPCB and with EPA's
oversight The RI/FS was conducted to
identify the types, quantities, and loca-
tions of contaminants and to develop
ways of solving the problems they pre-
sent. The results of the RI/FS show a
range of contamination problems:

• On-ste surface soils are contaminated
  with varying levels of PCBs and lead;

• On-site subsurface soils in the former
  lagoon and tank farm areas are con-
  taminated  with chlorinated aliphatic
  and polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
  bons and lead;

• A nearby municipal well is contami-
  nated; and

• A plume of contaminated ground water
  extends from the site to the XYZ River.
Operable Unit Three:
SOURCE CONTROL

  As with many Superfund sites, the
problems at the EIO Industrial site are
complex. As a result, EPA has divided
the work into three smaller units or
phases, referred to as "operable units."

  The operable units (Oils) at the EIO
Industrial site are:

• OU One: Contamination in  the
  municipal well.

• OU Two: Movement of contamination
  through the ground water.

• OU Three: Source control of contami-
  nated soils.

  EPA has already selected cleanup
alternatives for Operable Unit One and
Operable Unit Two. The two operable
units are in the Remedial Design phase,
which means that engineers are now
developing specific plans for implemen-
tation.  Construction  is  scheduled to
begin in March 1988 for work  on the
municipal well and June 1988 for clean-
ing up the ground water.

  The operable unit now under con-
sideration at the  EIO Industrial site is
Operable Unit Three: Source Control to
prevent possible direct human contact
with contaminated soils in the lagoon
and tank farm areas.

  The alternatives under consideration
for cleaning up the contaminated soils at
the site are presented on page 3. Among
these is the alternative currently prefer-
red for addressing contaminated soils. All
the remedies being considered are ana-
lyzed on page 4 using EPA's nine evalua-
tion criteria. The RI/FS Report presents
a more thorough description and evalua-
tion of the alternatives.

  Based on new information or public
comments, EPA, In consultation with
the State of Tennessee, may modify
the preferred alternative or select
another response action presented in
this Plan and the RI/FS Report. The
public, therefore, is encouraged to
review and comment on all the alter-
natives identified here. The RI/FS
Report on Operable  Unit Three
should be consulted for more infor
mation on these alternatives.
                            MAILING LIST
  If you did not receive this Proposed Plan in the mail and wish to be placed on the
mailing list for future publications, please fill out, detach, and mail this form to:
                                Jane Doe
                      Community Relations Coordinator
                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                           123 Peachtree Street
                            Atlanta, GA 00000
 Name
Address .

Affiliation.

Phone(

-------
1

                                     . .._
           Superfund  Program
           Proposed Plan
                               Region
           EIO Industrial
           Nameless, Tennessee
                                   June  1988
                                                                                                •
                                      EPA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED PLAN
                                        This Proposed  Plan is issued  to
                                      describe the options for controlling con-
                                      tamination sources at the EIO Industrial
                                      Superfund site in Nameless, Tennessee.
                                      The Plan is a summary of the cleanup
                                      alternatives that the U.S. Environmental
                                Figure 1
               EIO Industrial Site and Surroundings

                                            Proposed
                                            On-slte
                                            Landfill
                                            Location
                      Ground Water Flow
                      a-     a
               Soil Contamination

           O  Private Wells
- Site Boundary
  Municipal Well

        • NOT TO SCALE
                             Protection Agency (EPA) has considered
                             for controlling contaminant sources at the
                             site. It also presents and evaluates the
                             source control alternative preferred by
                             EPA, the lead agency in site activities,
                             and the Tennessee Pollution  Control
                             Board (TPCB), the support agency, for
                             the EIO site. The alternatives summa-
                             rized here are described in the Remedial
                             Investigation and Feasibility  Study
                             (RI/FS) Report on Operable Unit Three,
                             which should be consulted for a more in-
                             depth description of all alternatives.

                               Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive
                             Environmental Response, Compensa-
                             tion and Liability Act (CERCLA) requires
                             publication of a notice and brief analysis
                             of a Proposed Plan for site remediation.
                             The Plan also must be made available to
                             the public This Proposed Plan provides
                             background on the site, describes the
                             alternatives being considered to control
                             contaminated soils at the site, presents
                             the rationale for identification  of the
                             preferred alternative, and outlines the
                             public's role in helping EPA make a final
                             decision on a remedy.
Dates to remember
  MARK YOUR CALENDAR

June 1-30,1988:
Public comment  period  on
remedies to control contaminated
soils.
June 15 and 20,1988:
Public  meetings at Nameless
Community Hall, 123 Market Road,
Nameless, Tennessee at 7:30 p.m.
                                                                                               1

-------
   THE WORD NOTEBOOK

   Specialized terms used elsewhere in
   this Proposed Plan are defined below.
   activated carton canisters — a
   treatment system in which con-
   taminants are removed from air as it
   passes through canisters containing
   activated carbon, a material that at-
   tracts the contaminants.
   ARARa— Applicable or Relevant and
   Appropriate Requirements. Refers to
   the federal and state requirements that
   a remedy that EPA selects must attain.
   These requirements may  vary from
   site to site.
   chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
   (CAHa)— organic compounds com-
   posed of carbon, hydrogen, and
   chlorine  that may vaporize  easily.
   Those typically foqnd at hazardous
   waste sites have been  used  as
   degreasers and solvents. Some CAHs
   can cause cancer; and some depress
   the central nervous system.
   contaminant plume — A column of
   contamination  with  measurable
   horizontal and vertical dimensions that
   is suspended and moves with ground
   water.
   ground water— underground water
   that fills pores in soils or openings in
   rocks to the point of saturation. Unlike
   surface water, ground water cannot
   clean itself by exposure to sun or filtra-
   tion. Ground water is often used as a
   source of drinking water via municipal
   or domestic wells.
Incineration — high temperature
burning of materials to destroy hazar-
dous compounds.
leachate — a liquid that has passed
through wastes and contains some
components of these wastes.
lead — used in the manufacture of
batteries and pigments. It is also still
added to some gasoline to improve oc-
tane ratings. Exposure to low levels of
lead over long periods can cause
brain, bone, and neurological damage,
and learning disabilities in children.
monitoring—continued collection of
information about the environment
that helps gauge the effectiveness of a
clean-up action. Monitoring wells
drilled at different levels at the EIO In-
dustrial site would be used to detect
any leaks in the landfill liners.
organic compounds—carbon com-
pounds, such as solvents, oils, and
pesticides,  none of which tend to
dissolve readily in water. Some organic
compounds can cause cancer.
PCBs (polychlorinated blphenyls)
— a family of organic compounds
used in electric transformers as in-
sulators and coolants, in lubricants,
carbonless copy paper, adhesives,
and caulking compounds. They are
extremely persistent in the environ-
ment  because they do  not break
down into  new  and less harmful
chemicals. Although PCBs are not as
toxic in  acute  short-term  doses  as
some other chemicals, acute  and
chronic exposure can  cause liver
damage.
polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs) — organic chemical
compounds composed of carbon and
hydrogen, including materials such as
oil,  pesticides, and solvents.  Some
PAHS are carcinogenic.
revegetate—to replace topsoil, seed,
and mulch on prepared soil to prevent
wind and water erosion.
source control— refers to a remedy
that addresses contamination prob-
lems at their source, rather than at
some other point along the chain of ex-
posure. At the EIO Industrial site, for
example,  the  source of  potential
ground water and air contamination is
lodged in the soils at the site, and the
operable unit must reduce that source
to zero (if possible).
solidification — a process used to
reduce the  mobility  of liquid con-
taminants by mixing with a material
such as cement kiln dust to increase
the ability to handle the waste  and
make the substance less  likely to
leach.
volatile  organic   compounds
(VOCs) —organic compounds  that
vaporize  easily. Some  VOCs have
been shown to cause leukemia; some
are toxic to the kidney and liver;  and
some depress the central  nervous
system, causing drowsiness.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
123 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 00000

-------
  Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume of the Contaminants. Only
three of the alternatives would treat the
wastes. Alternative No. 9 would involve
treatment and permanent destruction of
the  most  mobile contaminants,  the
volatile organics. The treated soils would
still be  contaminated  with less-mobile
organic and metal compounds.  These
soils would be disposed  in a well-
designed and maintained landfill.

  Alternatives No. 10  and No. 11 both
would  Involve  incineration that  would
permanently destroy nearly all of the con-
taminants.  The small amount of ash
remaining would be disposed in landfills.

  Short-term effectiveness. Alterna-
tive No. 9 uses a treatment process and
an on-site landfill that contains the con-
taminated soils and reduces the possibil-
ity of direct human contact with contami-
nants more quickly than all the other
alternatives except Alternative No. 7.
Under the preferred alternative, once the
volatile organics have been collected in
canisters, there is some minorshort-term
risk of exposure to the community during
transportation of the canisters to a dis-
posal site.

  Because the  capacity of on-site and
off-site incinerators is limited, under Alter-
natives No.  10 and 11 contaminated soils
would be stockpiled for up to six years:
Under these two alternatives, the risks of
direct contact with stockpiled contami
nated soils  would be increased until in-
cineration has been completed. In addi-
tion, there are some risks of exposure to
air emissions from the incinerators.
  implementability. Of all the alter-
natives  No.  9  presents the  fewest
obstacles to a speedy and complete im-
plementation. Alternatives No. 7, No. 8,
and No.  9  have no  associated  ad-
ministrative difficulties that could delay
implementation.  The  remedies have
been used  successfully to address
similar contaminants at other Superfund
sites, and  the equipment and  skilled
workers needed to  construct the
remedies are readily available  in the
area.  There is some uncertainty
associated with the long-term effec-
tiveness of the cap that would be used
under Alternative No. 7 and the liners of
the landfills that would be used for Alter-
natives No. 8 and 9; however, the long-
term monitoring that would be required •
to establish the continued viability of the
preferred alternative would be less exten-
sive than would be necessary for Alter-
native No. 7.              .

  The activated carbon canisters that are
part of the vaporization step used in the
preferred alternative are available in the
area In contrast, there is some  uncer-
tainty about the availability of adequate
capacity at an off-site incinerator. This
could lead to delays of up to six years in
implementing  Alternative  No. 10.
Because there is only one mobile in-
cinerator that could be used at the site,
the implementation of Alternative No. 11
may take over two years to complete.

  Cost. Alternative No. 6 has no costs.
The construction costs for each of the re-
maining alternatives  are estimated as
follows:  Alternative 7: $740,485; Alter-
native  8: $18,188,000;  Alternative 9:
$4,666,000; Alternative 10: $39,056,421;
and Alternative 11: $42,460300.
   State acceptance. The State of Ten-
 nessee  supports  the   preferred
 alternative.

   Community Acceptance. Communi-
 ty acceptance of the preferred alternative
 will be evaluated after the public com-
 ment period and will be described in the
 Record of Decision for the site.
THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

  The preferred alternative — excava-
tion, treatment,  and disposal of  con-
taminated soils in an on-site landfill —
would use proven treatment techniques.
These techniques would permanently"
reduce one of the main contaminants of
concern at the site, volatile organic corn-
ponds (VOCs)  in the soils. Although,
some contaminated soils would remain
in a landfill at the site, removal of the
VOCs would  reduce the level  of long-
term monitoring necessary to ensure the
continued viability of the landfill remedy.
The equipment and  skilled labor
necessary  to construct the preferred
alternative are currently available.

  In summary, at this time the preferred
alternative represents the best balance
among the evaluation criteria used to
evaluate  remedies.  Based on  the •
information available at this time, there-
fore, the EPA and the State of Tennes-
see  believe  the preferred  alternative
would  be protective,  would  attain
ARARs, would  be cost  effective,  and
would utilize  permanent solutions  em-
ploying alternative or resource recovery
technologies  to  the maximum extent
possible.
   THE COMMUNITY'S ROLE IN THE SELECTION PROCESS

     EPA solicits input from the community on the cleanup methods proposed for each Superfund response action. EPA has set a public com-
   ment period from June 1 through June 30,1988 to encourage public participation in the selection process. The comment period includes
   two public meetings at which EPA, with the TPCB, will present the RI/FS Report and Proposed Plan, answer questions, and receive both
   oral and written comments.

     The public meetings are scheduled at 7:30 p.m. June 15 and 20,1988 and will be nek) at the Nameless Community Hall, 123 Market Road,
   in Nameless, TN.

     Comments will be summarized and responses provided in the Responsiveness Summary section of the Record of Decision (ROD). The
   ROD is the document that presents EPA's final selection for cleanup. The public can send written cornments to or obtain further inforrrurtion fro

                                                      Jane Doe
                            Community Relations Coordinator, US. Environmental Protection Agency
                                         123 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 00000
                   (555) 5554640 « TolMree 1 (800) 333-1515 between 8:30 am and 4:30 p.m. (Monday - Friday)

     EPA and TPCB are soliciting public comments about the most acceptable way to clean up the EIO Industrial site. The Proposed Plan
   and the RI/FS Report have been placed in the Information Repositories and Administrative Record tor the site. The Administrative Record
   includes all documents such as work plans, data analyses, public comments, transcripts, and other relevant material used in developing the
   remedial alternatives for the EIO Industrial site. These documents are available tor public review and copying at the following locations:
                    Nameless Public Library
               125 Elm Street, Nameless. TN 00000
           (101) 999-1099 • Hours: Mon-Sat, 9 a.m. - 9 p.m.
                                US. EPA Docket Room, Region 4
                          Federal Building, 10th Floor, Atlanta, GA 00000
                       (555) 555-1212 • Hours: Mon-Fri, 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

-------
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
  The alternatives presented below are
numbered to correspond with  the
numbers in the RI/FS  Report. After
numbers 1-5 were evaluated in earlier
studies, two were selected to remedy pro-
biems addressed by Operable Units One
and Two described on  page 2. The
source control alternatives for Operable
Unit Three are:
• Alternative 6: No Action.
• Alternative 7: Capping.
• Alternatives: Excavation and Disposal
  in an Off-site Landfill.
• Alternative 9: Excavation. Treatment of
  Volatile Organic Compounds in  a
  Vaporization Loop, and Disposal in an
  On-site Landfill.
• Alternative 10: Excavation and Off-site
  Incineration.
• Alternative 11: Excavation,  On-site In-
  cineration, and Solidification.

  All  alternatives except "no action"
would include removal and/or treatment
of the storage tanks and long-term ground
water monitoring to gauge the effective-
ness of the land disposal mechanism
used. The excavation alternatives would
involve the  movement of 28,000 cubic
yards of contaminated soils from  the
lagoon and tank farm area.

Alternative 6:
NO ACTION
Construction Cost: 0*
Annual O&M (Operation and
Maintenance) Costs: 0'
Months to Implement: none
  The Superfund program requires that
the "no action" alternative be considered
at every site. Under this alternative, EPA
would take no further action at the site to
control the sources of contamination.

Alternative 7:
CAPPING
Construction Cost: $740,485'
Annual O&M Costs: $18,120'
Months to Implement: 5*
  This remedy would include installation
of a 24-inch compacted soil cap over con-
taminated surface soils, and installation of
a thick, impervious cap over  areas with
subsurface soil contamination.



  Figure 2: Diagram of Alternative 9,
  Excavation with On-Site Disposal.
Alternative 8:
EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL IN AN
OFF-SITE LANDFILL
Construction Cost: $18,188,000'
Annual O&M Costs: $26,200"
Months to Implement T
  Under Alternative 8, the contaminated
soils would be excavated and hauled to a
permitted landfill while the excavated
area would be regraded and backfilled
with clean soil.  All  contaminated
materials would be disposed in an off-site
permitted landfill.

Alternative 9:
EXCAVATION, TREATMENT,  AND
DISPOSAL IN AN ON-SITE LANDFILL
Construction Cost: $4,666,000'
Annual O&M Costs: $41000*
Months to Implement: 12-15'
  This alternative would involve treat-
ment of harmful vapors and the construc-
tion of a secure on-site landfill to hold the
contaminated soils. The landfill probably
would be constructed at the north-eastern
end of the EKD property. The landfill would
occupy about 5 acres, and conform to
federal and state requirements. The land-
fill would be capped, the rest of the site
regraded, and the whole site revegetated.
Figure  2 presents a diagram of how this
alternative would work.
  To remove the most mobile wastes, a
low-temperature volatilization step would
be inserted into the process between
excavation  and landfilling. This  step
would separate the volatile wastes from
the  soils, using  activated carbon
canisters,  leaving only the less mobile
organic and metal compounds in the soil
to be landfilted on-site. The spent carbon
canisters would be shipped off-site to a
permitted  hazardous waste disposal
facility. Following treatment, the soils
would be stored in the on-site landfill.
Alternative 10:
EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE
INCINERATION
Construction Cost: $39056,421'
Annual O&M Costs: $26,200'
Months to Implement 36 to 72'
  In this alternative, all the contaminated
soils would be excavated, moved, and
destroyed in an off-site incinerator, with
the remaining ash property disposed by
the operators of the incinerator.

Alternative 11:
EXCAVATION, ON-SITE INCINERA-
TION, AND SOLIDIFICATION
Construction Cost: $42,463300'
Annual O&M Costs: $26,200'
Months to Implement 30'
  With this alternative, a mobile incinera-
tor would be brought to the site, and all
the  contaminated soils would  be
destroyed on-site. Waste gases and water
from this process would be collected and
treated; residual metals and ash would be
solidified and disposed off-site.
'All costs and implementation times are estimated
            CONttMlung CMMTM TMUCUD
            OtWOMAJITt

-------
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
  The preferred alternative for the
source control operable unit at the
EIO site is Alternative 9, excavation,
treatment and  disposal  of con-
taminated soils in an on-site landfill.
Based on current information, this alter-
native provides the best balance among
nine criteria that EPA uses to evaluate
alternatives.  This section  provides a
glossary of these criteria and an analysis
of the alternatives under consideration
for the EIO site.
ANALYSIS

  Overall Protection. All of the alter-
natives, with the exception of the no
action alternative, would provide ade-
quate protection of human health and
the  environment  by  eliminating,
reducing, or controlling risk through
treatment, engineering controls, or in-
stitutional controls. The  preferred
alternative  would  treat  the  most
volatile organic contaminants in the
soils and use a  covered landfill to
  GLOSSARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
   • Overall Protection  of Human
    Health and the Environment ad-
    dresses whether or not a remedy
    provides adequate protection and
    describes how risks are eliminated,
    reduced or controlled through treat-
    ment, engineering controls, or in-
    stitutional controls.

   • Compliance with  ARARs ad-
    dresses whether or not a remedy
    will meet all of the applicable or rele-
    vant and appropriate requirements
    of other environmental statutes
    and/or provide grounds for invoking
    a waiver.

   • Long-term effectiveness and per-
    manence refers to the ability of a
    remedy to maintain reliable protec-
    tion of human health  and the en-
    vironment over time once cleanup
    goals have been met.

   • Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
    volume is the anticipated perfor-
    mance of the treatment technolo-
    gies a remedy may employ.
• Short-term effectiveness involves
  the  period of time  needed to
  achieve protection and any adverse
  impacts on human health and the
  environment that may be posed dur-
  ing the construction and implemen-
  tation period until cleanup goals are
  achieved.

• Implementability is the technical
  and administrative feasibility of a
  remedy, including the availability of
  materials and services needed to
  implement the chosen solution.

• Cost includes capital and operation
  and maintenance costs.

• State  Acceptance  indicates
  whether, based on its review of the
  RI/FS and Proposed Ran, the State
  concurs  with, opposes, or has no
  comment   on   the   preferred
  alternative.

• Community  Acceptance will be
  assessed in the Record of Decision
  following a review of the public com-
  ments received on the RI/FS report
  and the Proposed Plan.
reduce the risks of direct contact with the
contaminants remaining at the site.

  Compliance with ARARs. All alter-
natives except no action would meet all
applicable or relevant and appropriate re-
quirements of Federal  and State  en-,,
vironmental laws.

  Long-term effectiveness and per-
manence.  The  preferred alternative
would treat ail of the volatile organics in
the contaminated soils. The treated soils
would still be contaminated with some
organic and metal compounds; however,
the long-term risks of exposure to the rer
maining contaminants in the soils would
be reduced by sealing the soils in a well-
designed and maintained landfill that
would  prevent migration  of the con-
taminants to ground water, surface water,
air,  and other soils.  A ground water
monitoring system  would  be installed
around the landfill to assess the effec-
tiveness of the containment unit.

  Alternative No. 8 would employ a simi-
lar  landfill system off-site, thereby
eliminating the long-term risks of expo-
sure at the site. With both landfill alter-
natives, the long-term effectiveness of
the remedies may be affected because
portions of the caps of the landfills used
in these alternatives may need to  be
replaced.

  The cap to be used in Alternative No.
7 over the long-term would reduce the
amount of water that otherwise would
pass  through the contaminated soils,
generating leachate that could migrate to
the ground water.  The contaminated
soils, however, would remain untreated at
the site and would pose possible long-
term risks of exposure. The cap's effec-
tiveness would be evaluated through
long-term monitoring. The cap would re-
quire long-term maintenance, and por-
tions of it may need to be replaced in the
future.

  The two treatment alternatives would
permanently destroy most of the con-
taminanted soils. The ash generated by
the incinerators, however, would be con;
laminated by the metal compounds not
destroyed  during  incineration.  Under
Alternative No. 10, the  ash would  be
disposed in an off-site landfill to protect
against  risks of future human contact.
Under Alternative  No. 11, the con-
taminated ash would be solidified to pre-
vent the possibility of human contact.
The solidified waste would be stored in
a landfill on-site.

-------
                                                                OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                        APPENDIX B

                                THE EVALUATION  CRITERIA
This review draft is intended fox internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                                 OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                        APPENDIX  B

                                THE EVALUATION CRITERIA
This review draft is intended for  internal agency review only.  It baa not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and'should not at this stage be construed to  represent agency policy.

-------
                                                            Exhibit B-l
                                     The  Nine  Remedial Evaluation Criteria
Overall
Protection
Compliance
with ARARs
Long-term
Effectiveness
and
Permanence
Reduction of
Toxicity, Mobility,
and Volume
(TMV)
Short-term
Effectiveness
How alternative elimi-
nates, reduces, or
controls existing and
potential risks to hu-
man health and the
environment through
treatment, engineering
controls, and/or institu-
tional controls
•  Attainment of chemical-,
   location-, and action-
   specific requirements

•  Compliance with other
   criteria, advisories, and
   guidances

•  Grounds for invoking
   a waiver
•  Magnitude of total residual
   risk in terms of untreated
   waste & treatment
   residuals

•  Adequacy and suitability
   of controls (engineering &
   institutional) used to man-
   age untreated waste and
   treatment residuals

•  Reliability of controls over
   time, including potential
   for failure and potential
   resulting risk
•  Treatment process and
   amount of material to be
   treated

•  Amount of hazardous
   materials that will be
   destroyed or reduced,
   including how principal
   threat is addressed
   through treatment

•  Degree of expected TMV
   reduction (e.g., percent
   of total, order of
   magnitude)

•  Degree to which treatment
   is irreversible

•  Type and quantity of
   residuals resulting from
   treatment process
Potential impacts on
community during RA
implementation

Potential impacts on
workers during RA and
the effectiveness and
reliability of protective
measures

Potential environmental
impacts of RA and the
effectiveness and
reliability of mitigative
measures

Time until protection is
achieved

-------
                                                           Exhibit B-l (com'd)
                                       The Nine Remedial  Evaluation  Criteria
                Implementability
          Cost
        State
    Acceptance
      Community
     Acceptance"
•  Technical feasibility
   -  Difficulties & unknowns associated
      with technology
   -  Reliability of technology
   -  Ease of undertaking additional action,
      if required
   -  Reliability & effectiveness of monitoring

•  Administrative feasibility
   -  Ability & time necessary to obtain required
      approvals/permits
   -  Steps required to coordinate with
      other Agencies and associated
      time requirements

•  Availability of services and materials
'   -  Treatment, storage or disposal capacity
   -  Existence of multiple vendors
   -  Availability of needed equipment
      & specialists
   -  Timing of technology availability
•  Capital

•  Operation & maintenance

•  Present worth
Features of the alternative
the State supports

Features of the alternative
about which the State has
reservations

Elements of the alterna-
tive the State strongly
opposes
•  Features of 'the alterna-
   tive the community sup-
   ports

•  Features of the alterna-
   tive about which the
   community has reserva-
   tions

•  Elements of the alterna-
   tive the community
   strongly opposes
  Only very preliminary assessments of this criteria will be included in the Proposed Plan. It will be fully assessed in the ROD.

-------
                                                               OSWER pirective 9355.3-02
                                       APPENDIX C
             OUTLINE OF THE DECLARATION  FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                      OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                  OUTLINE OF

                    DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION


(Note:  Document  for  Assistant/Regional Administrator's and
        State Director's Signature)


SITE NAME AND LOCATION

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

     "This decision document presents the selected remedial action  for  the 	
        fsite!	, in 	flocation!	,  developed in accordance  with
     CERCLA, as amended by SARA,  and, to  the extent practicable, the National
     Contingency  Plan.   This decision is  based on the administrative record
     for this site.   The attached index identifies the items which  comprise
     the administrative record upon which the selection of the  [remedial,
     removal] action  is based."

     The State of 	 has concurred on the selected  remedy	

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
         Describe  role  of this operable unit within overall site
         strategy  (does it address principal threats posed by the
         site?)
         Describe  the major components of the selected remedy
DECLARATION
         When the  selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference  for
         treatment as  a  principal element,  either total treatment or  a
         combination of  containment and treatment of the principal
         threat(s) at  the  site,  the Declaration should state:

         "The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
         environment,  attains Federal and State requirements that are
         applicable or relevant  and appropriate to this remedial action  [or  "a
         waiver can be justified for whatever Federal and State applicable or
         relevant  and  appropriate requirements that will not be met"], and is
         cost-effective.   This remedy satisfies the statutory preference  for
         remedies  that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or
         volume as a principal element and utilizes permanent solutions and
         alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the
         maximum extent  practicable."

         When a remedy involving little or no treatment is selected
         (treatment is not utilized to address the principal threat).
         CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires a statement explaining  why
  This review draft is intended tor internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                      OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
         a remedial action involving such reductions was not  selected.
         The Declaration  should state:

         "The selected  remedy is protective of human health and the
         environment, attains Federal and State requirements  that are
         applicable or  relevant and appropriate to the remedial action [or "a
         waiver can be  justified for whatever Federal and State applicable or
         relevant and appropriate requirement that will not be  met"],  and is
         cost-effective.   This  remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
         alternative treatment  (or resource recovery) technologies to the
         maximum extent practicable for this site.  However,  because  treatment
         of the principal  threats of the site was not found to  be practicable
         [or "within the  limited scope  of this action"], this remedy  does not
         satisfy the statutory  preference for treatment as a  principal  element
         of the remedy."

         If the remedy  will  leave hazardous substances onsite above health-
         based levels,  the Declaration  should include the following:

         "Because this  remedy will result in hazardous substances
         remaining onsite  above  health-based levels,  a review will be
         conducted within  five  years after commencement of remedial action
         to ensure that the  remedy continues to provide adequate
         protection of  human health and the environment."

         If the remedy  will  not  leave hazardous substances onsite above
         health-based levels, the Declaration should include  the  following:

         "Because this  remedy will not  result in hazardous substances
         remaining onsite  above  health-based levels,  the five year review
         will not apply to this  action."
           (Signature of Assistant/Regional Administrator)
           (Signature of State Director (if appropriate))
           Date
(Note:   Attach the State's letter  of concurrence to the Record of Decision
        package)     .
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                               OSWER  Directive 9355.3-02
                                       APPENDIX D
                  SAMPLE DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It haa not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not  at this  stage  be construed to  represent agency policy.

-------
                                                      OSWER -Directive  9355.3-02
                              RECORD OF DECISION

                              SAMPLE DECLARATION

                      Statutory Preference  for Treatment
                         as a Principal Element is Met
SITE NAME AND LOCATION

EIO Company Site
Nameless, TN   .                                    .

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND  PURPOSE

     This decision document presents the selected remedial action  for  the EIO
     Company Site, in Nameless,  TN,  developed in accordance with CERCLA,  as
     amended by SARA, and,  to the extent practicable, the National Contingency
     Plan.  This decision is based on the administrative record for this  site.
     The attached index identifies the items which comprise the administrative
     record upon which  the  selection of the remedial action is based.

     The State of Tennessee concurs on the selected remedy.

DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY

     This operable unit is  the final action of three operable units for the
site.  This operable unit addresses the source of the contamination by
remediation of the on-site  wastes and contaminated soils.  The remedy
addresses the principal threats  at the site by sealing off the EIO property as
a source of future ground-water  contamination and reducing the risks
associated with exposure to the  contaminated materials.  The first operable
unit at this site involves  remediation of a municipal well.  The second
operable unit involves  remediation of the downgradient contaminant plume.

The major components of the selected source control remedy include:

          Excavation and treatment,  via incineration, of approximately 28,000
          cubic yards of contaminated soils and waste materials.

      --  Disposal of treated soils in a secure landfill to be constructed at
          the site in accordance with Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act
          requirements.

      --  Restoration of a  lost  potable water resource by providing treatment,
          via air stripping,  of  municipal public water supply well Number 7.

          Provision of  an alternate water supply for residents potentially
          affected by ground-water contamination from the site.
  This review draft is intended tor internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      -  2 -
           Preparation of a supplemental remedial investigation and feasibility
           study to identify the  extent and other sources  of ground-water
           contamination and to develop and evaluate appropriate remedial
           alternatives.

DECLARATION  _               '          '

     The  selected remedy is protective of human health and  the environment,
attains Federal and State requirements that are applicable  or relevant and
appropriate to  the remedial action,  and is cost-effective.   This remedy
satisfies the statutory preference  for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity,  mobility or volume as a principal element and utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative  treatment (or resource  recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.  Because  this remedy will not
result in hazardous substances remaining onsite above health-based levels, the
five year facility review will not apply to this action.
Date                                                Signature  (AA/RA)
                                                    Signature  (SD)
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed  to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                      OSWER pirective 9355.3-02

                                     - 3 -
                              RECORD OF DECISION

                              SAMPLE DECLARATION

                    Statutory Preference for Treatment as  a
                         Principal  Element is  Not Net
                    and Five-Year Facility Review Required
SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Municipal Landfill Site
Nowhere, NY

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

     This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
     Municipal Landfill Site,  in Nowhere, NY, developed  in accordance with
     CERCLA, as  amended by SARA, and, to the extent practicable,  the National
     Contingency Plan.   This decision is based on the administrative record
     for this site.   The attached index identifies the items which comprise
     the administrative record upon which the selection  of the  remedial action
     is based.

     The State of New York concurs on the selected remedy.

DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY

     This operable unit is the first of two for the site.  The  first operable
unit addresses the source of the contamination by containing the  on-site
wastes and contaminated soils.  The function'of this operable unit is to seal
off the Municipal Landfill site as a source of ground-water contamination and
to reduce the risks associated with exposure to the contaminated  materials.
The remedy does  not address the principal threats at the site because it is
not technically  feasible to address the ground-water contamination at this
time.  The second operable unit will involve continued study and  possible
remediation of the downgradient contaminant plume.

     The major components of the selected remedy include:

          Installing a security fence around the landfill site;

          Capping the 65-acre landfill in accordance with Resource
          Conservation and Recovery Act requirements;

          Installing surface water controls to accommodate seasonal
          precipitation;

          Environmental monitoring to ensure the effectiveness  of the remedial
          action.
  This review draft ia intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally releaaed by the
  U.S. Enviroimental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to  represent agency policy.

-------
                                                       OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
           Preparing a supplemental  remedial investigation and feasibility
           study to identify the extent  of ground-water contamination and to
           develop and evaluate appropriate remedial alternatives.

DECLARATION

     The  selected remedy is protective  of human health and the environment,
attains Federal and State requirements  that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate,  and is cost-effective.  This remedy utilizes permanent solutions
and alternative treatment (or resource  recovery) technologies to the maximum
extent practicable for this site.  However,  because treatment of the principal
threats of the  site was not found to be practicable,  this remedy does not
satisfy the  statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the
remedy.   The size of the landfill and the fact that there are ho on-site hot
spots that represent the major sources  of contamination preclude a remedy in
which contaminants effectively could be excavated and treated.

     Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining onsite
above health-based levels,  a review will  be  conducted within five years after
commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate  protection of human health and the  environment.
Date                                                Signature (AA/RA)
                                                    Signature (SD)
  This review draft ia intended for internal agency review only. It haa not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage  be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                                OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                       APPENDIX E

                        OUTLINE OF  THE  ROD  DECISION SUMMARY
This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency' and should not at this stag* be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                             RECORD OF DECISION

                            ROD DECISION SUMMARY


  I.  SITE NAME.  LOCATION.  AND DESCRIPTION

      Describe  the  site in terms of:

      -  Name,  location,  address (include maps or site plan as appropriate)
     •-  Area of  site,  topography,  whether located in a  floodplain
      -  Adjacent land uses
      -  Natural  resource use
      -  Distance to nearby populations
      -  General  surface  and ground-water resources
         Surface  and subsurface features (e.g., number and volume of tanks,
         lagoons, structures,  drums)

 II.  SITE HISTORY  AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

      Describe  investigations and site status:

      -  History  of site  activities that led to current  problems
      -  History  of site  investigations (State and Federal)
         History  of CERCLA enforcement actions at the site,  including:

         --  Whether special notice has been issued to PRPs;
             If a moratorium has commenced;
         --  Results of negotiations, if they can be summarized;
         --  Whether a law suit has been filed (provide  court  and docket
             number);  and
         --  Whether technical discussions with PRPs are summarized in the
             administrative record.

III.  COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY

      Describe  key  community relations information, such as:

      -  Key activities in fulfillment of CERCLA §§113 and 117

      (Reference  the Responsiveness summary for more details)

 IV.  SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION

         Summarize  scope  of problem and how it will or will not address the
         principal  threats at the site.

  V.  SITE CHARACTERISTICS

      Highlight the following factors:

         Types  of contamination and affected media (include a  description of
         quantity,  types  and concentration of hazardous  substances present);
 This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                      - 2  -
        -   All known or suspected sources of contamination;  and

        -   All known and potential routes of migration (include a description
           of  mobility,  toxicity and volume of waste;  lateral and vertical
           extent of contamination; and potential  surface and subsurface
           pathways  of migration).

           (Note:  maximize the use of maps and figures)

  VI.   SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

           Identify  contaminants of concern
           Summarize results of exposure assessment
           Summarize toxicity assessment of contaminants  of  concern
           Summarize risk characterization, including:

           - -   potential or actual  carcinogenic risks,
           --   noncarcinogenic risks,  and
               environmental risks.

           Describe  analytical methods used in making  the risk calculations.

 VII.   DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES fS117(b)1

        -   Identify  Preferred Alternative

           List the  significant changes

           Provide reasons for those changes

VIII.   DESCRIPTION  OF ALTERNATIVES

        Describe  the alternatives considered with  respect to:

        •   Containment components

               Type  and  quantity of waste to be contained
               Quality of untreated waste and treatment residuals to be
               contained in terms of the type or degree of risks they pose
               Type  of closure that will be implemented.

        •   Treatment components

               Treatment technologies  that will be used
               Type  and  volume of waste treated
               Contaminated media addressed
               Process sizing
               Primary treatment levels (e.g., BOAT, percentage or order of
               magnitude reductions expected, etc.)
               Residual  levels (e.g. NPDES, delisting)
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                   - 3 •-
         - ..  Implementation requirements
             Assumptions, limitations, uncertainties
             Ground water classification

      •   Major ARARs and TBCs being met/utilized for the specific components
         of the,waste management process.  The  major ARARs.will typically
         include:    .

         •    RCRA Subtitle C
                Closure (landfill or closure by removal)
             -  Subpart F Ground-Water Monitoring
             -  Location Standards
             -  Minimum Technology
                Subpart 0 Incineration
                Land Disposal Restrictions
         •    RCRA Subtitle D
         •    Clean Water Act
             -  Federal Water Quality Criteria
                POTW requirements
             -  NPDES standards
         •    SDWA
             -  MCLs
         •    TSCA
         •    CAA                                                  ,
         •    State Standards.

IX.   SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

      Summarize the results of the comparative  analysis to provide the
      rationale for the selection of the final  remedy by highlighting why  the
      selected remedy provides the best balance among the tradeoffs between
      the nine evaluation criteria.  The nine criteria are:

         overall protection of human health and the environment;
         compliance with ARARs;
         long-term effectiveness and permanence;
         reduction of .toxicity, mobility, and volume;
         short-term effectiveness;
         implementability;
         cost;
         state [or support agency] acceptance;  and
         community .acceptance.

 X.   THE SELECTED REMEDY

      Description of the selected remedy

         Risk level to be attached at the conclusion of the response action;

      -   The rationale for this determination;  and
This review draft is intended for internal agency review only. It baa not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage  be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                    -  4 -
      -  The points of compliance  for media being addressed (e.g., ground-
         water). -

 XI.   STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

      Describe/explain rationale for  how the selected remedy meets the
      statutory requirements of CERCLA §121.

      1.   Protectiveness

          •   Describe how selected remedy will eliminate,  reduce or control
              existing or future risks to ensure adequate protection of human
              health and the environment.

          •   Indicate that no unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media
              impacts will be caused  by implementation of the remedy.

      2.   Attainment of Applicable or Relevant  and Appropriate Requirements

          •   State whether the selected remedy will attain Federal and State
              ARARs.  List ARARs that will not  be met,  identify the waiver to
              be involved and explain the justification for using the waiver.

          •   List and describe the Federal and State ARARs the remedy will
              attain.   Organize by chemical-specific,  action-specific, and
              location-specific ARARs,  and distinguish between applicable vs.
              relevant and appropriate requirements.  '

          •   List and describe "to be considered" (TBC) criteria (e.g.,
              policies, criteria, guidance)  the remedy has  been designed to
              meet and the rationale  for their  use.

      3.   Cost effectiveness

          •   Describe how the selected remedy  provides overall effectiveness
              commensurate to its costs such  that it represents a reasonable
            .  value for the money.

      4.   Utilization of permanent solutions  and alternative treatment (or
          resource recovery) technologies  to  the maximum extent practicable

          •   Describe how remedy was  judged to provide the best balance
              among the nine evaluation criteria of all alternatives examined
              in detail,  highlighting its  performance against criteria deemed
              most important for the  site  such  that:

              - .The remedy is the most appropriate solution for the site.
              -  The remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent
                 solutions and treatment can be practicably utilized.
This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                       OSWER  Pirective 9355.3-02

                                     - 5 -
          Preference  for treatment as a principal element

          •   Describe how the preference for  treatment is  satisfied if  the
              remedy  uses treatment to address principal threats posed by the
              site.

          •   Explain why the preference is not satisfied if treatment is not
              used  to address principal threats.

              -  May  include discussion of how operable unit does not
                 encompass principal threats.
              -  Hay  include discussion of reasons treatment of principal
                 threats was not  found to be practicable.
This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It baa not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed  to  represent agency policy.

-------
                                                               OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
                                       APPENDIX F

                             SAMPLE MAPS AND TABLES  FOR

                                THE  RECORD OF DECISION
This review draft is  intended for internal agency review only.   It haa not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------


LIFETIME

Chemical


Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Isophorone
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
1,1,1 trichloro-
e thane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Bis (2-ethyhexyl)
phthalate
Naphthalene
Pentachloropheno 1
FCBs
Arsenic
Lead
Other Parameters
Years of Exposure:
Average Weight over

EXHIBIT F-l
GROUND-WATER INGESTION
(Present Conditions)
Most-Probable Case
Concentration (ug/1)
Southwest North
Plume Plume
4J
94J 0.8J
2 •
9J 0.2
667 1.4J
527J
52J
22 83J
11 8j
5
0.04
62
2
7 7

. Lifetime
70 kg
OSWER Directive 9355.3-02

EXPOSURE

Worst -Case Exposure
Concentration (ug/1)
Southwest North
Plume Plume
170
3,500 10J
44
500 3
52,000 10J
2,000
1,200
1,400 380
470 65
210
3
4,800
124
150 44

Lifetime
70 kg
  Exposure Period
Amount of Water Consumed
2 I/day
2 I/day

-------
                                                                                                                          OSWEH Directive 9355.3-02
                                                                   EXHIBIT F-X
                                                         SOMMKT V BIS CHaBaCIERIZATICB
Bcncarclnogenlc Effects
Medium
Southwestern Soils
Northern Soils
Southwestern Ground Hater Plume
Northern Ground Hater Plume
Exposed
Exposure Route Population
Direct Contact Child
Adult
Direct Contact Child
Adult
Ingestion . -Child
and
Adult
Ingestion Child
Adult
Significant Chemicals
Lead (9SX)
Lead (9SX)
Lead (100X)
Lead (9SX)
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
1, 1. 1-trlchloroethane
Naphthalene
Lead
Lead (88X)
Lead (88X)
Risk Ratio
Most Worst
Probable Case
21.2
14.1
39.7
21.2
1.58 58.8
26
— - 10
1.1
7.1
2.1
2.1
Sunroarv Hflz
Most
Probable
0.25
0.04
O.i
0.03
2.58
0.39
0.39
i

Worst
Case
22.2
14.8
39. 6
26.3
103.4
2.39
2.39
— - Less than 0.1




Other Chemicals, Exposure Routes show no significant risk.




Numbers in parentheses represent percentage of total noncarclnogenic risk contributed by specific chemicals.

-------
                               OSWER Directive  9355.3-02
           EXHIBIT  F-3




FINAL TARGET CLEANUP LEVELS (TCLs)
Northern Ground Water Plume

Chemical
Lead
Vinyl Chloride
Southwestern Ground Water Plume

Chemical
Arsenic
Lead
Chlorobenzene
Benzene
TCE
Vinyl Chloride
PCBs
Northern Surface Soils

Chemical
Arsenic
Southwestern Surface Soils

Chemical
Arsenic
PCBs
Lead
Calculation
Southwestern Subsurface Soils
Chemical
Chlorobenzene
Isophorone
Methylene Chloride
1,1,1- tr ichloroethane
Trichloroethylene t .

TCL
(UG/L)
50
0.015

TCL
(ug/1)

50
60
0.133
0.627
0.003
0.002

TCL
(mgAg)
14

TCL
(mgAg)
14
10
70

TCL
(mgAg)
Sum of
the VOCs
not to
exceed
0.08 mgAg


Source
MCL
Carcinogenic Risk Calculation


Source
50MCL
MCL
Proposed MCLG
Carcinogenic Risk Calculation
Carcinogenic Risk Calculation
Carcinogenic Risk Calculation
Carcinogenic Risk Calculation


Source
Background Level


Source
Background Level
HDNR/EPA Decision
Noncarcino genie Risk


Source
Derivation using TCLs for
VOCs in the ground water
and Koc for chemicals in
the soils .


-------
^^^
*' t
   LEGEND


•*•>, AFPmMMM
-J WEUAMOI

"i INFERRED WITLANO BOUMMMV
                                         APHtOXNMTC WETLAND BQUNOAMV (FROM NATIONAL
                                         WEIL AMOS INVEMIOHV MAP)
12000     l
-------
                                                               OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                                       APPENDIX G

                         ADDITIONAL SOURCES  OF INFORMATION
This review draft it intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stag* be construed to represent agency policy.

-------
                                                      OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
                       Additional Sources of Information
Comprehensive  Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
and Superfund  Amendments  and Reauthorization Act of 1986  (SARA).

Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under
CERCLA.  OERR  and  OWPE, March 1988 (OSWER Directive 9355.3-01).   Note:   Draft.

"Implementation  Strategy  for Reauthorized Superfund:  Short-Term Priorities
for Action," October  24,  1986 (OSWER Directive 9355.0-5C).

National Oil and Hazardous  Substances Pollution Contingency  Plan (47 FR
31180), November 20,  1985.   Note:   Under revision.

State Participation in  the  Superfund PT7np;'trfl'^r Volume 1.  OERR,  February 1984
(OSWER Directive 9375.1-4).

Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance.  OERR,  June 1986
(OSWER Directive 9355.0-4A).

Superfund State-Lead  Remedial Project Management Handbook.   OERR,  December
1986 (OSWER Directive 9355.2-1).

Superfund Federal-Lead  Remedial Project Management Handbook.  OERR,
	  (OSWER  Directive 	     ).

Work Assignment  Procedures  for Remedial Contracts.  OERR, November 1986 (OSWER
Directive 9242.3-3A).

Interim Guidance' on Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and  Appropriate
Requirements.  OERR,  July 9,  1987  (OSWER Directive 9234.0-05).

Interim Guidance for  FY87 Records  of Decision.'  OERR, July 24,  1987 (OSWER
Directive 9355.0-21).

Community Relations in  Superfund:   A Handbook (OSWER Directive  92300-28).

Guidance on Compliance  with State  Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements.  OERR.  (Being Developed)

Guidance on Compliance  with Federal Applicable or Relevant and  Appropriate
Requirements.  OERR.  (Being Developed)

Interim Guidance on CERCLA  Administrative Records.  OWPE.  (OSWER Directive
9833.1A)
  This review draft is intended tax internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by tho
  U.S.  Ehvironaental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

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

                                         - 2  -
Guidance on  Developing a  Suoerfund Memorandum of Agreement.  OERR/OWPE,  (OSWER
9375.0-01)

Interim Guidance on EPA-State Relations  in CERCLA Enforcement.   OWPE.   (Being
Developed)
  This review draft is intended for internal agency review only.  It has not been formally released by the
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage be construed to represent agency policy.

-------