-------
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.
-------