United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Washington, DC 20460
PB93-963402
9360.0-32
EPA540-R-93-057
August 1993
svEPA
Superfund
Guidance on Conducting
Non-Time-Critical
Removal Actions Under
CERCLA
-------
EPA/540-R-93-057
Publication 9360.0-32
PB93-963402
August 1993
GUIDANCE ON CONDUCTING NON-TIME-CRITICAL
REMOVAL ACTIONS UNDER CERCLA
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Notice
The policies and procedures set forth herein are intended solely as guidance for government
personnel. They are not intended, nor can they be relied on, to create any rights enforceable by
any party in litigation with the United States (U.S.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
officials may decide to follow this guidance or act at variance with it, based on an analysis of
specific site circumstances. The Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance at any time
without public notice.
11
-------
Contents
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1
1.1 The SACM Approach 2
1.2 Overview of the Removal Action Process 3
1.3 Roles and Responsibilities 7
Regional Decision Team 7
State Involvement 8
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Involvement 8
Responsibility for Post-Removal Site Control (PRSC) 8
1.4 Resources 9
1.5 Enforcement and Cost Recovery 10
PRP Search and Identification 10
Notice Letters 10
PRP Negotiation 11
Cost Recovery 11
1.6 Public Involvement and the Administrative Record 12
Community Relations Requirements 13
Administrative Record Requirements 14
1.7 Action Memorandum 15
1.8 On-Scene Coordinator Reports 17
2.0 CONDUCTING THE ENGINEERING EVALUATION/COST
ANALYSIS (EE/CA) 19
2.1 Overview 19
2.2 EE/CA Approval Memorandum 22
2.3 EE/CA Executive Summary 23
2.4 Site Characterization 24
Site Description and Background 25
Previous Removal Actions 26
Source, Nature, and Extent of Contamination 27
Analytical Data 28
Streamlined Risk Evaluation 29
lit
-------
Contents (Continued)
Page
2.5 Identification of Removal Action Scope, Goals, and
Objectives 31
Statutory Limits on Removal Actions 31
Determination of Removal Scope 32
Determination of Removal Schedule 32
2.6 Identification and Analysis of Removal Action
Alternatives 33
Treatment Technologies 33
Treatment Technology Information Sources 34
Effectiveness 35
Implementability 40
Cost 43
2.7 Comparative Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives 45
2.8 Recommended Removal Action Alternative 45
Appendix A References 47
Appendix B Key Word Index 52
Appendix C Comparison of EE/CA to RI/FS 54
Appendix D Model Notice of Decision Not to Use Special
Notice Procedures 56
IV
-------
Exhibits
Exhibit Page
Number Title Number
1. Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Process 5
2. Action Memorandum Outline 16
3. EE/CA Development Process 21
4. EE/CA Approval Memorandum 22
5. EECAOutline 23
6. Information From Previous Removal Actions Applicable To Current
EE/CA 27
7 Objectives/Criteria To Be Used in Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 36
8. Identification and Evaluation of ARARs During Non-Time-Critical Removal
Actions 38
-------
List of Acronyms
AOC—Administrative Order on Consent
ARARs—Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ARCS—Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
ATSDR—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
ATTIC—Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
CA—Cooperative Agreement
CERCLA—Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
CLP—Contract Laboratory Program
CLU-IN—Cleanup Information Bulletin Board
CRP—Community Relations Plan
DOD—Department of Defense
DOE—Department of Energy
EE/CA—Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
EIS—Environmental Impact Statement
EPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERGS—Emergency Response Cleanup Services
ERRS—Emergency and Rapid Response Services
ERT—Environmental Response Team
FR—Federal Register
LTCS—Long-Term Contracting Strategy
MCLs—Maximum Contaminant Levels
MCLGs—Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
MOU—Memorandum of Understanding
NCP—National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL—National Priorities List
NRT—National Response Team
VI
-------
List of Acronyms (Continued)
O&M—Operation and Maintenance
OMB—Office of Management and Budget
OP A—Office of Policy Analysis
ORC—Office of Regional Counsel
ORD—Office of Research and Development
OSC—On-Scene Coordinator
OSWER—Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PA—Preliminary Assessment
PRP—Potentially Responsible Party
PRSC—Post-Removal Site Control
QA/QC—Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RA—Regional Administrator
RRT—Regional Response Team
RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDT—Regional Decision Team
RI/FS—Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD—Record of Decision
RPM—Remedial Project Manager
SACM—Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
SARA—Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SI—Site Inspection
SITE—Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
START—Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
TAT—Technical Assistance Team
TBC—-To Be Considered
TIO—Technology Innovation Office
UAO—Unilateral Administrative Order
vu
-------
List of Acronyms (Continued)
USGS—United States Geological Survey
VISITT—Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
VOC—Volatile Organic Compound
viu
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The purpose of this guidance is to provide information on the procedures and activities the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses in conducting non-time-critical removal actions
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs) and Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) should use this guidance to ensure
that non-time-critical removal actions are conducted in accordance with applicable laws,
regulations, and EPA policy.
This guidance focuses primarily on those aspects of the removal process that are unique to
non-time-critical removal actions. Introductory material presented in this chapter provides a
context for how non-time-critical removal actions fit within the overall Superfund program.
Chapter 1 contains seven sections, as follows:
• Section 1.1 describes non-time-critical removal actions in relation to the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM).
• Section 1.2 provides an overview of the removal process.
• Section 1.3 highlights the roles and responsibilities of Federal, State, and private
entities in conducting non-time-critical removal actions.
• Section 1.4 outlines the resources available to OSCs/RPMs in conducting non-time-
critical removal actions.
• Section 1.5 describes enforcement and cost recovery activities.
• Section 1.6 highlights public involvement and administrative record requirements
for non-time-critical removal actions.
• Section 1.7 describes Action Memorandum requirements for non-time-critical
removal actions.
Chapter 2 provides guidance for conducting an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
(EE/CA), which analyzes removal action alternatives for a site. Chapter 2 supersedes the outline
for conducting an EE/CA dated March 30, 1988. An EE/CA, required under section
300.415(b)(4)(i) of the NCP for all non-time-critical removal actions, provides a vehicle for public
involvement and evaluates and recommends the appropriate response.
Chapter 2 describes the following EE/CA activities:
• Section 2.1 provides information on when non-time-critical removal actions may be
appropriate and on the EE/CA development process.
-------
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
• Section 2.2 describes the purpose and content of the EE/CA Approval
Memorandum.
• Section 2.3 explains that the Executive Summary should provide a general
overview of the EE/CA.
• Section 2.4 highlights the types of information that should be gathered to
characterize the site, determine the source, nature, and extent of contamination, and
assess risks posed by the site.
• Section 2.5 outlines how to identify removal action objectives for the non-time-
critical removal action.
• Section 2.6 describes the process for identifying and analyzing removal action
alternatives.
• Section 2.7 describes how to compare removal action alternatives for effectiveness,
implementability, and cost.
• Section 2.8 describes how to determine the recommended removal action
alternative.
Details on conducting removal actions are found in a variety of laws, regulations, and
guidance documents. Additional references that may be consulted for further information are
presented at the conclusion of each section of this chapter, with a list of references presented in
Appendix A of this guidance. Appendix B presents a key word index of major terms used in this
guidance. Appendix C presents a comparison of the EE/CA process and the remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process. Appendix D presents a model Notice of Decision
Not to Use Special Notice Procedures.
1.1 THE SACM APPROACH
SACM is now being implemented to make Superfund cleanups more timely and efficient.
The non-time-critical removal action represents a primary SACM tool for accomplishing early
actions, and can be applied to a broad array of response actions. Specifically, SACM involves:
A continuous process for assessing site-specific conditions and the need for action
Cross-program coordination of response planning
Prompt risk reduction through early action
Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems
Early public notification and participation
Early initiation of enforcement activities.
SACM should be considered for all Superfund activities, so long as implementation is
consistent with requirements of the NCP and CERCLA. Overall Superfund program priorities
remain the same: address the worst problems first, aggressively pursue enforcement, and involve
the public during all stages of the work. The goals of SACM are being accomplished by focusing
on the front end of the cleanup process and better integrating all Superfund program components.
-------
1.1 THE SACM APPROACH (CONTINUED)
SACM encourages EPA Regions to explore new ways to use removal authorities under the
NCP to achieve prompt risk reduction. An integrated removal and remedial site management
strategy under SACM will most likely involve the increased use of non-time-critical removal
authority to achieve prompt risk reduction at Superfund sites. Regional Decision Teams (RDTs), a
SACM concept introduced in OSWER Publication 9203.1-051, Volume I, Number 5, "SACM
Regional Decisions—Interim Guidance" (December 1992), PB93-96266, are anticipated to
emphasize early actions such as non-time-critical removal actions without jeopardizing the
Superfund program's commitment to enforcement first. Decisions will be made to ensure that an
early action will be consistent with any long-term action that may eventually be required. In the
context of non-time-critical removal actions, this means that opportunities for treatment and
permanence should be fully evaluated in the EE/CA, where appropriate (see Chapter 2).
For More Information:
1. OSWER Publication 9203.1-051, Volume 1, Numbers 1-5 (December 1992)
• "Status of Key SACM Program Management Issues—Interim Guidance,"
PB93-963262.
• "Early Action and Long-Term Action Under SACM—Interim Guidance,"
PB93-963263.
• "Enforcement Under SACM—Interim Guidance," PB93-963264.
• "Assessing Sites Under SACM—Interim Guidance," PB93-963265.
• "SACM Regional Decision Teams—Interim Guidance," PB93-963266.
2. OSWER Publication 9200.2-02, "Accelerated Response at NPL Sites
Guidance" (December 15, 1989), PB90-258302/CCE.
3. OSWER Publication 9203.1-03, "Guidance on Implementation of the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) under CERCLA and the NCP"
(July 7, 1992), PB93-963252.
4. OSWER Publication 9203.1-03A, "Exercising Flexibility Through the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM)" (October 26, 1992), PB93-
963253.
5. OSWER Publication 9360.0-15, "The Role of Expedited Response Actions
Under SARA" (April 21, 1987), PB91-214221/CCE.
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE REMOVAL ACTION PROCESS
CERCLA and the NCP define removal actions to include "the cleanup or removal of
released hazardous substances from the environment, such actions as may necessarily be taken in
the event of the threat of release of hazardous substances into the environment, such actions as may
be necessary to monitor, assess, and evaluate the release or threat of release of hazardous
substances, the disposal of removed material, or the taking of such other actions as may be
necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or to the
environment, which may otherwise result from a release or threat of release." EPA has categorized
removal actions in three ways: emergency, time-critical, and non-time-critical, based on the type of
situation, the urgency and threat of the release or potential release, and the subsequent time frame
in which the action must be initiated. Emergency and time-critical removal actions respond to
releases requiring action within 6 months; non-time-critical removal actions respond to releases
requiring action that can start later than 6 months after the determination that a response is
3
-------
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE REMOVAL ACTION PROCESS (CONTINUED)
necessary. Each response is unique and may require more expedited response based on the
threatened population, contaminants of concern, and other factors. The following are potential
removal actions identified in section 300.415(b)(2)(i)-(viii) of the NCP:
• Prevention or abatement of actual or potential exposure to nearby human
populations, animals, or the food chain from hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants
• Prevention or abatement of actual or potential contamination of drinking water
supplies or sensitive ecosystems
• Stabilization or elimination of hazardous substances in drums, barrels, tanks, or
other bulk storage containers that may pose a threat of release
• Treatment or elimination of high levels of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants in soils largely at or near the surface that may migrate
• Minimization or elimination of the effects of weather conditions that may cause
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants to migrate or to be released
• Elimination of threat of fire or explosion
• Determination of availability of other appropriate Federal or State response
mechanisms to respond to the release
• Mitigation or abatement of other situations or factors that may pose threats to public
health, welfare, or the environment.
OSCs/RPMs must always consider section 300.415 in determining the appropriateness of taking
any removal action. Section 300.415(d)(l)-(9) of the NCP provides a partial list of removal
actions that may be taken to address specific situations. Exhibit 1, on the following page,
illustrates the non-time-critical removal action process.
The following steps are for non-time-critical removal actions:
• Section 300.410 of the NCP outlines the process for conducting a removal site
evaluation, which includes a removal preliminary assessment (PA) and, if
warranted, a removal site inspection (SI). The OSC/RPM performs the removal
PA, based on readily available information, to identify the source and nature of the
release or threatened release and to assess the threat to public health, the magnitude
of the threat, and the factors necessary to determine the need for a removal action.
The removal PA also determines if more information is needed to characterize the
release, such as off-site or on-site inspection of conditions and sampling. If more
information is necessary, the OSC/RPM performs a removal SI. Data gathered
during the removal site evaluation help OSCs/RPMs determine the need for
response, if any, and the urgency of the response. For non-time-critical removal
actions, OSCs/RPMs further characterize the release and propose the removal action
as a result of the EE/CA process, as discussed in Chapter 2. The subsequent
selection of the appropriate response is made in the Action Memorandum.
-------
EXHIBIT 1
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Process*
Enforcement
Efforts
Public
Involvement
State
Involvement
Discovery or
Notification
Site Assessment
Engineering
Evaluation/Cost
Analysis (EE/CA)
Approval
Memorandum
EE/CA
Public Comment
Period
Action
Memorandum
Non-Time-Critical
Removal Action
Implementation
Removal Site
Closeout
Post-Removal Site
Control
Additional removal actions or remedial actions may occur at any time, depending on the exigencies of the site
conditions.
-------
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE REMOVAL ACTION PROCESS (CONTINUED)
• In general, the EE/CA Approval Memorandum is prepared by the OSC/RPM
once the removal site evaluation has been completed and the need for a non-time-
critical removal action has been determined. This memorandum serves three
important functions. First, the memorandum is used to secure management
approval and funding to conduct the EE/CA. Second, it documents that the
situation meets the NCP criteria for initiating a removal action and that the proposed
action is non-time-critical. Third, it provides detailed information pertaining to the
site background; threats to public health, welfare, or the environment posed by the
site (e.g., expected changes in the situation if no action is taken or if the action is
delayed); enforcement activities related to the site; and projected costs.
• An EE/CA must be completed for all non-time-critical removal actions as required
by section 300.415(b)(4)(i) of the NCP. The goals of the EE/CA are to identify the
objectives of the removal action and to analyze the various alternatives that may be
used to satisfy these objectives for cost, effectiveness, and implementability. While
an EE/CA is similar to the RI/FS conducted for remedial actions, it is less
comprehensive. The Action Memorandum summarizes the EE/CA. EE/CAs are
considered CERCLA section 104(b)(l) studies. Therefore, EE/CA costs are not
counted toward the $2 million statutory limit on removal actions.
• A public notice describing the EE/CA (see Chapter 2) and announcing a public
comment period must be published in a major local newspaper. The public
notice may be combined with notice of the availability of the administrative record
file, pursuant to the administrative record requirement in section 300.820 of the
NCP. The EE/CA is part of the administrative record file and is subject to the
public comment and comment response requirements for the administrative record.
For More Information:
CERCLA:
§101, Definitions
§104(a), Removal Action
§104(b), Investigations, Monitoring, etc., by President
§104(b)(l), Information; Studies and Investigations
§104(c)(l), Statutory Limits
§104(f), Contracts for Response Action; Compliance with Federal Health and
Safety Standards
§ 113(g)(2), Actions for Recovery of Costs Statute of Limitations
§113(k), Administrative Record and Participation Procedures
NCP:
§300.5, Definitions
§300.400(b), Limitations on Response
§300.410, Removal Site Evaluation
§300.415, Removal Action
§300.415(b)(4), EE/CA Requirement
§300.415(b)(5), Exemptions to Statutory Limitations on Fund-Financed
Removal Actions
§300.415(c), Contribution to Remedial Action
-------
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE REMOVAL ACTION PROCESS (CONTINUED)
§300.150, Worker Health and Safety
§300.160, Documentation and Cost Recovery
§300.135(m), Reporting Requirements for Response Operations
§300.165, OSC Reports
§300.820, Administrative Record File for a Removal Action
3. OSWER Publication 9203.1 -051, Volume 1, Number 4, "Assessing Sites
Under SACM—Interim Guidance" (December 1992), PB93-963265.
4. OSWER Publication 9285.1 -03, "Standard Operating Safety Guides" (June
1992), PB92-963414.
5. OSWER Publication 9285.8-02, "Health and Safety Audit Guidelines: SARA
Title I, Section 126" (December 1989), EPA/540/G-89/010, PB90-204157.
6. OSWER Publication 9360.0-02C, "Removal Cost Management System:
Version 3.2" (May 1990), EPA/540/P-90/003, PB90-272691.
7. OSWER Publication 9360.0-12A, "Final Guidance on Implementation of the
'Consistency' Exemption to the Statutory Limits on Removal Actions"
(June 12, 1989), PB90-274465/CCE.
8. OSWER Publication 9360.0- 12FS, "Exemptions from the Statutory Limits on
Removal Actions" (November 1990), PB91-921304/CCE.
9. OSWER Publication 9360.0-18, "Removal Program Priorities" (March 31,
1988), PB91-205484/CCE.
10. OSWER Publication 9360.2-04, "Authorization for Regional Administrators to
Approve Consistency Exemption at NPL Sites" (February 24, 1992),
PB92-963343.
11. 29 CFR §1910.120, HAZWOPER Regulations
12. 40 CFR Part 311, Worker Protection
1.3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Because of the urgency of emergency and time-critical removal actions, EPA OSCs/RPMs
or U.S. Coast Guard OSCs generally retain the lead for conducting or overseeing these actions.
For non-time-critical removal actions, it may be appropriate for the State to take the lead in
conducting the removal action or taking enforcement actions. Regardless of who takes the lead,
the OSC/RPM is responsible for determining whether technical assistance is needed from another
agency and arranging for that assistance.
In carrying out a non-time-critical removal action, the OSC/RPM directs or reviews the
work of other agencies, PRPs, and contractors to ensure compliance with CERCLA and the NCP;
reviews all decision documents, enforcement orders, and workplans; oversees all expenditures of
EPA funds; and ensures that all staff working on the response know site operating and safety
procedures. The following section briefly describes the types of responsibilities specific to non-
time-critical removal actions.
Regional Decision Team
The RDT convenes to consider response options at the point when assessment information
is adequate to support decision-making. The RDT, a new concept under SACM, ensures effective
coordination, communication, and integration of Superfund program authority, expertise,
resources, and tools. For non-time-critical removal actions, the RDT should assist in assessing the
-------
1.3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (CONTINUED)
opportunity for response and in initiating the preparation of the EE/CA Approval Memorandum,
the EE/CA, and the Action Memorandum. The RDT assists in determining whether proposed
actions are time-critical or non-time-critical or whether the site requires remedial action. RDT
involvement in emergency removal action and the more time-critical removal action decision-
making may be limited based on the time available before initiating action. Also, RDT involvement
in removal assessments and decision-making may vary from Region to Region.
State Involvement
Pursuant to 40 CFR Subpart O, section 35.6200, when a planning period of more than 6
months is available, States, political subdivisions, and Indian Tribes may apply for a removal
Cooperative Agreement (CA) to lead a non-time-critical removal action. When a State does not
participate in conducting and/or financially supporting a Fund-lead non-time-critical removal
action, the RDT should first determine the urgency of the situation, and then, depending on the
outcome of the urgency assessment, determine whether the non-time-critical removal action should
proceed despite lack of State involvement. Headquarters will remain involved under SACM for
approving consistency exemptions from the $2 million removal limit at sites not on the National
Priorities List (NPL).
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Involvement
One of EPA's primary objectives for any Superfund action is to have the parties
responsible for the release of hazardous substances be accountable for the response. CERCLA
authorizes EPA to negotiate settlements, issue orders to compel response, or sue PRPs to repay
response costs when the Fund has been used to finance removal actions. Because non-time-critical
removal actions permit a planning period of at least 6 months, there is time for enforcement
planning before the start of on-site activity. As with other removals, the OSC/RPM should work
with Regional technical enforcement staff to identify PRPs, initiate actions to obtain PRP response,
and conduct negotiations to enter into settlement agreements (see section 1.5).
Responsibility for Post-Removal Site Control (PRSC)
In some cases, PRSC activities will be necessary to ensure the continuing effectiveness of a
completed non-time-critical removal action. Examples of these activities are relighting gas flares,
replacing filters, and collecting leachate. Superfund program policy for completing removal
actions states that protracted and costly long-term PRSC is more appropriately conducted by the
affected State or local government or PRPs. If the OSC/RPM believes that PRSC may be
necessary, the OSC/RPM should obtain a commitment from the State or local government or PRP
to perform and fund necessary PRSC actions prior to initiating a response. Such commitments
could be part of a settlement document with a PRP or take the form of a letter agreement or
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with State or local governments. If the OSC/RPM is
unable to obtain such an agreement, removal options that involve continuing PRSC should be
avoided where other options are feasible.
-------
1.3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (CONTINUED)
For More Information:
1. NCP:
§300.500-300.525, State Involvement in Removal Actions
§300.525, State Involvement in Hazardous Substance Response
2. 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O, Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State
Contracts for Superfund Response Actions
3. 40 CFR §35.6200-6205, Removal Response Cooperative Agreements
4. 40 CFR §35.6240-6255, Support Agency Cooperative Agreements
5. OSWER Publication 9203.1-051, Volume 1, Number 5, "SACM Regional
Decision Teams—Interim Guidance" (December 1992), PB93-963266.
6. OSWER Publication 9360.2-02, "Policy on Management of Post-Removal Site
Control" (December 3,1990), PB91-921326/CCE.
7. OSWER Publication 9360.3-06, "Superfund Removal Procedures—Removal
Enforcement Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators" (April 1992),
PB92-963409.
1.4 RESOURCES
A number of resources can provide technical assistance to the lead agency carrying out a
non-time-critical removal action. These include national, Regional, and specialized response
teams; contractors; other Federal agencies; and State and local governments. Section 300.145 of
the NCP describes special teams and other assistance available to OSCs/RPMs.
In addition, Superfund's Long-Term Contracting Strategy (LTCS) (OSWER Publication
9242.6-07, "Approval of Long-Term Contracting Strategy for Superfund [Superfund Management
Review: Recommendations E.2]" [August 1990]), PB90-273822/CCE, provides OSCs/RPMs
with mechanisms for greater flexibility in selecting contract support and improves oversight and
cost management by giving the Regions full responsibility for contracts management. This
strategy provides a road map to Superfund contractor support. The LTCS anticipated many of the
underlying principles of SACM. For example, the increase in early action responses will be aided
by the newly created Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS) contracts. The LTCS also
combines site assessment and removal technical assistance functions under single Superfund
Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) contracts. The LTCS envisions that the
Agency's non-time-critical removal actions will be performed using Response Action Contracts
(RACs). Available contracting vehicles and capacities will affect the strategy for conducting both
early and long-term actions under SACM. The process of developing these and other new
contracts has begun and will continue over the next several years, consistent with the phase-in of
SACM.
Currently, a variety of contractor resources is available to OSCs/RPMs. OSWER
Publication 9200.5-402A, "Contracting and Subcontracting Guide to the Superfund Program"
(May 1992), EPA/540/G-91/012, PR-923, lists available contractor firms in each Region and
individuals to contact for information on available contracts.
-------
1.4 RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
For More Information:
1. NCP §300.145, Special Teams and Other Assistance Available to OSCs/RPMs
2. OSWER Publication 9200.5-402A, "Contracting and Subcontracting Guide to
the Superfund Program" (May 1992), EPA/540/G-91/012, PR 923.
. OSWER Publication 9240.01-0ID, "User's Guide to the Contract Laboratory
Program" (January 1991), EPA/540/P-91/002, PB91-921278.
. OSWER Publication 9242.2-01B, "Emergency Response Cleanup Services
(ERCS) Contracts: User's Manual" (October 1987), PB90-191966/CCE.
. OSWER Publication 9242.2-02, "Site-Specific Contracting for Removals"
(April 10, 1989), PB91-215053/CCE.
. OSWER Publication 9242.6-01, "ARCS Work Assignment Management, Field
Guide" (January 1989), PB91-214965/CCE.
. OSWER Publication 9242.6-07, "Approval of Long-Term Contracting Strategy
for Superfund (Superfund Management Review: Recommendations E.2)"
(August 1990), PB90-273822/CCE.
. OSWER Publication 9360.6-08, "Technical Assistance Team (TAT) Contracts
Users' Manual" (October 1991), PB92-963407.
1.5 ENFORCEMENT AND COST RECOVERY
PRP Search and Identification
EPA expects much of the early site assessment activities to be Fund-lead. However,
changes to PRP-lead can occur during site assessment, prior to the EE/CA, or prior to initiating the
non-time-critical removal action. The increased pace of response under SACM's integrated
assessment process may require that the enforcement team work faster and devote more resources
to PRP search and identification early in the process. This may lead to changes in PRP search
methodology and, therefore, require less time to complete the PRP search than the current process.
Notice Letters
For time-critical and emergency removal actions, the time available to conduct enforcement
activities will be limited, and notice letters will typically be issued simply to notify the PRP of its
potential liability or to encourage informal negotiations. However, in many instances, formal
negotiations may be more appropriate for non-time-critical removal actions. Regions may use
CERCLA section 122(e) special notice letters for non-time-critical removal actions whenever
practicable unless use of such procedures would interfere with the Agency's ability to implement a
response in an expeditious manner. When deciding the appropriateness of using CERCLA section
122(e) special notice procedures, OSCs should consider whether viable PRPs have been identified,
and whether identified PRPs are expected to respond favorably to the invitation to negotiate.
Issuance of the CERCLA section 122(e) special notice letter triggers a 60- to 120-day
moratorium on on-site response activities under CERCLA section 104(a), including conducting the
RI/FS. However, this does not mean that all activity related to the non-time-critical removal falls
under the moratorium. Pursuant to section 122(e)(2)(A), the Agency may commence any
10
-------
1.5 ENFORCEMENT AND COST RECOVERY (CONTINUED)
additional studies or investigations authorized under section 104(b) during the negotiation period.
Since EE/CAs are considered CERCLA section 104(b) studies, preparation of the EE/CA may
continue during the moratorium. Under this moratorium, if the PRP does not provide EPA with a
good faith offer, the moratorium ends after 60 days.
Whenever EPA decides to forego use of CERCLA section 122(e) special notice
procedures, CERCLA section 122(a) requires EPA to notify the PRP in writing of the reasons why
formal negotiations are inappropriate. OSCs issuing such notice should refer to Appendix D,
which presents a model Notice of Decision Not to Use Special Notice Procedures.
PRP Negotiation
Preparing certain documents before negotiations ensures that EPA will enter negotiations
with a well-defined plan for PRP or agency response. One of the goals of negotiations is to
develop an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC). The AOC may contain a workplan as an
attachment. The AOC also might require the PRP to draft a detailed workplan as a first deliverable.
AOCs should contain reimbursement provisions for past costs and oversight costs, where
appropriate. If the initial removal assessment indicates that a non-time-critical removal action
should be taken, the Region could negotiate an order with the PRPs for the EE/CA and include the
eventual non-time-critical removal action in the order under CERCLA section 106 authority.
For non-time-critical removal actions, sufficient time is usually available to negotiate
consent agreements with the PRP. However, if the PRP does not respond to notice letters or
refuses to sign an AOC, EPA has the authority to proceed with a Fund-lead response or under
CERCLA section 106, where an imminent and substantial endangerment exists, to issue a
Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) requiring a PRP to perform the removal action.
It is generally anticipated that by using SACM's phased PRP search approach, as described
in OSWER Publication 9203.1-051, Volume I, Number 3, "Enforcement Under SACM—Interim
Guidance" (December 1992), PB93-963264, there will be sufficient time before initiating non-
time-critical removal actions to allow those actions to be PRP-lead. For example, if the RDT
decides, based on the early results of a PRP search, to initiate a Fund-lead EE/CA to support a
non-time-critical removal action, the Region can continue PRP search activities during the EE/CA.
After completing the EE/CA, the RDT can decide, based on supplemental PRP data, to seek PRP
participation in conducting the non-time-critical removal action.
Cost Recovery
The statute of limitations for cost recovery for removal actions is 3 years from the
completion of the removal action, unless a consistency exemption to the statutory limits under
CERCLA section 104(c)(l)(C) has been approved. (In these circumstances, the statute of
limitations is 6 years from the date of the last exemption.) A consistency exemption may be sought
if the continued response action under CERCLA removal authorities is appropriate and consistent
with the remedial action to be taken (see OSWER Publication 9360.0-12A, "Final Guidance on
Implementation of the 'Consistency' Exemption to the Statutory Limits on Removal Actions" [June
12, 1989], PB90-274465/CCE). EPA's past costs should be sought in negotiations with PRPs,
when appropriate. A decision not to pursue cost recovery must be documented in a Removal
Action Cost Recovery Close-Out Memorandum prepared in consultation with the Office of
Regional Counsel (ORC).
-------
1.5 ENFORCEMENT AND COST RECOVERY (CONTINUED)
For More Information:
1 CERCLA:
§106, Abatement Actions
§122(e), Special Notice Procedures
2. OSWER Publication 9200.3-01H-1, "Superfund Program Implementation
Manual 1993" (June 1993), PB92-963276.
3. OSWER Publication 9203.1-051, Volume 1, Number 3, "Enforcement Under
SACM—Interim Guidance" (December 1992), PB93-963264.
4. OSWER Publication 9360.0-12A, "Final Guidance on Implementation of the
'Consistency' Exemption to the Statutory Limits on Removal Actions"
(June 12, 1989), PB90-274465/CCE.
5. OSWER Publication 9360.2-04, "Authorization for Regional Administrators
to Approve Consistency Exemption at NPL Sites" (February 24, 1992),
PB92-963343.
6. OSWER Publication 9360.3-01, "Superfund Removal Procedures—Action
Memorandum Guidance" (December 1990), EPA/540/P-90/004,
PB90-274473.
7. OSWER Publication 9360.3-06, "Superfund Removal Procedures—Removal
Enforcement Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators" (April 1992),
PB92-963409.
8. OSWER Publication 9832.0-1 A, "Procedures for Documenting Costs for
CERCLA Section 107 Actions" (January 30, 1985), PB91-138958/CCE.
9. OSWER Publication 9832.1, "Cost Recovery Actions Under CERCLA"
(August 26, 1983), PB91-138966/CCE.
10. OSWER Publication 9832.11, "Guidance on Documenting Decisions Not to
Task Cost Recovery Actions" (June 7, 1988), PB91-139048/CCE.
11. OSWER Publication 9832.13, "Superfund Cost Recovery Strategy"
(July 29, 1988), PB91-139063/CCE.
12. OSWER Publication 9833.0-1 A, "Guidance on CERCLA Section 106(a)
Unilateral Administrative Orders for Remedial Designs and Remedial Actions"
(March 13, 1990), PB91-139089/CCE.
13. OSWER Publication 9834.10, "Interim Guidance on Notice Letters,
Negotiations, and Information Exchange" (October 19,1987), PB91-
139253/CCE.
14. OSWER Publication 9834.10-lb, "Model Notice Letters" (February 7,
1989), PB91-139279/CCE.
15. OSWER Publication 9837.2B, "Enforcement Project Management Handbook:
FY1993 Update" (May 1993), PB93-963602.
16. Superfund Indirect Cost Manual. Financial Management Division, Office of
the Comptroller (July 1991).
1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
As with all CERCLA actions, early and frequent involvement of the public, including
involvement above and beyond the requirements, is crucial to expedited cleanups under SACM.
12
-------
1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
(CONTINUED)
Public involvement activities in Superfund promote communication between members of the
public, including PRPs, and the lead government agency responsible for removal or remedial
actions. Public involvement activities should be tailored to the needs of the community as well as
to the technical action schedule.
Section 113(k)(2) of CERCLA provides for involving communities affected by response
decisions at Superfund sites. Public involvement in the Superfund program, as a whole, consists
of public outreach activities conducted throughout the planning and implementation of Superfund
removal and remedial responses.
Since removal actions generally proceed quickly, there is less time to plan or conduct public
participation activities than during remedial responses. Sections 300.415(m) and 300.820 of the
NCP specify two forms of public participation for all removal actions:
• Community relations activities—designed to integrate the information needs of the
community into the communications approach or community relations plan for the
site.
• Administrative record activities—designed to chronicle the basis for the response
selection and serve as a vehicle for public participation in the removal action.
Community Relations Requirements
The NCP and CERCLA outline a variety of community relations requirements to promote
communication. The following are requirements for non-time-critical removal actions:
• Designate Community Relations Spokesperson. This person shall inform the
community of actions taken, respond to inquiries, and provide information
concerning the release.
• Conduct Community Interviews. Before completing the EE/CA, the lead agency
must conduct community interviews to gather background information for the
Community Relations Plan (CRP). The purpose of these interviews is to solicit
information about community concerns, information needs, and how or when
citizens would like to be involved in the removal action.
Prepare CRP. Pursuant to sections 300.415(m)(4), 300.415(m)(4)(i), and
300.415(m)(3)(ii) of the NCP, a CRP must be prepared before the EE/CA is
completed. The CRP is a site-specific document that relates the community
relations techniques and approaches deemed appropriate and relevant to the site.
• Establish Information Repository. The information repository must be established
no later than the signing of the EE/CA Approval Memorandum (see Chapter 2).
The repository is a project file or collection of materials relating to the specific
Superfund site and to the Superfund program in general. The administrative record
file is included in the repository.
• Provide Public Notice of Availability of EE/CA. A public notice describing the
Agency's preferred alternative and EE/CA results (see Chapter 2) and announcing
13
-------
1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
(CONTINUED)
its availability for review and comment must be published in a major local
newspaper. The EE/CA is part of the administrative record file.
Administrative Record Requirements
The administrative record file, a subset of the site file, is the body of documents EPA uses
to form the basis for the selection of a response. It should not be confused with the administrative
record, which is not complete until a response action has been selected. The administrative record
file, as provided in section 300.820 of the NCP, may include site-specific data and comments,
documents which were considered or relied on to select the removal action, guidance documents,
technical references, and documents that reflect the views of the public, including PRPs,
concerning the selection of a removal action. A strong administrative record helps ensure cost
recovery, helps uphold EPA's remedy selection, and helps limit litigation-related information
gathering discovery. For non-time-critical removal actions, the EE/CA Approval Memorandum,
the EE/CA, and the Action Memorandum are critical components of the administrative record file.
The administrative record closes once the decision document, in the case of a non-time-critical
removal action the Action Memorandum, is signed. The record will reopen if the Action
Memorandum is amended. The required administrative record activities for non-time-critical
removal actions are:
• Establish the Administrative Record File. The administrative record file must be
established no later than the signing of the EE/CA Approval Memorandum. The
OSC/RPM, as the lead for on-site activity, is responsible for compiling and
maintaining the administrative record in accordance with the NCP. The
administrative record file must be made available for public inspection and copying
when the EE/CA is made available for public comment at a central location at or
near the site.
• Publish Notice of Availability of the Administrative Record File. A public notice
must be published when the EE/CA is placed in the administrative record file and is
available for comment. Additionally, if the notice also is used to announce a public
comment period on the EE/CA, then it must state that upon timely receipt of a
request (defined in the NCP preamble as generally within 2 weeks after the public
comment period starts, but it may be considered valid if received within the 30-day
period), the comment period will be extended a minimum of 15 additional days.
• Hold Public Comment Period. For non-time-critical removal actions, the NCP
requires a 30-day public comment period on the EE/CA and any supporting
documentation (including fact sheets or other documents summarizing the
alternatives under consideration) at the time the EE/CA is made available for public
comment.
• Develop Written Response to Significant Comments. After the public comment
period is over, the OSC/RPM is required to prepare a written response to significant
comments received during the comment period. The response to comments should
be included in the administrative record file.
14
-------
1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
(CONTINUED)
For More Information:
1. CERCLA § 113(k)(2), Participation Procedures
2. NCP:
§300.415(m), Community Relations in Removal Actions
§300.810, Contents of the Administrative Record File
§300.820, Administrative Record File for a Removal Action
§300.825, Record Requirements After the Decision Document is Signed
3. OSWER Publication 9230.0-03C, "Community Relations in Superfund: A
Handbook" (January 1992), EPA/540/R-92/009, PB92-963341.
4. OSWER Publication 9360.3-05, "Superfund Removal Procedures—Public
Participation Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators: Community Relations and
the Administrative Record" (June 1992), PB92-963416.
5. OSWER Publication 9833.3A-1, "Final Guidance on Administrative Records
for Selection of CERCLA Response Actions" (December 3, 1990),
PB91-139121/CCE.
6. OSWER Publication 9836.0-1 A, "Community Relations During Enforcement
Activities and Development of the Administrative Record" (November 3, 1988),
PB91-139519/CCE.
1.7 ACTION MEMORANDUM
An Action Memorandum provides a concise, written record of the decision to select an
appropriate removal action. Exhibit 2, on the following page, provides an outline of the
information that should be included in the Action Memorandum. As the primary decision
document, it substantiates the need for a removal action, identifies the proposed action, and
explains the rationale for the removal action selection. In this respect, the Action Memorandum for
removal actions parallels the function of the Record of Decision (ROD), which documents the final
action plan for a remedial response; however, the Action Memorandum is not as elaborate as the
ROD. An Action Memorandum may also reserve the appropriate funding needed for the proposed
removal action.
Action Memoranda follow a standard format. Specific topics must be addressed in the
Action Memorandum to demonstrate that the release meets statutory and NCP requirements for a
removal action. For non-time-critical removal actions, an EE/CA summary or the EE/CA
Executive Summary, the EE/CA Approval Memorandum or a summary thereof, and a summary of
the written comments on the EE/CA for alternative actions considered for non-time critical removal
actions should be part of the "Proposed Actions and Estimated Costs" section of the Action
Memorandum. In addition, a copy of the EE/CA, or the Executive Summary, and the Agency's
response to significant public comments on the EE/CA should be attachments to the Action
Memorandum and become part of the administrative record file.
15
-------
EXHIBIT 2
Action Memorandum Outline
I. Purpose
II. Site Conditions and Background
A. Site Description
1. Removal site evaluation
2. Physical location
3. Site characteristics
4. Release or threatened release into the environment of a hazardous
substance, or pollutant, or contaminant
5. NPL status
6. Maps, pictures, and other graphic representations
B. Other Actions
1. Previous actions
2. Current actions
C. State and Local Authorities' Roles
1. State and local actions to date
2. Potential for continued State/local response
III. Threats to Public Health or Welfare or the Environment, and
Statutory and Regulatory Authorities
A. Threats to Public Health or Welfare
B. Threats to the Environment
IV. Endangerment Determination (see page 16 of Action Memorandum
Guidance)*
V. Proposed Actions and Estimated Costs
A. Proposed Actions
1. Proposed action description
2. Contribution to remedial performance
3. Description of alternative technologies
4. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
5. Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
6. Project schedule
B. Estimated Costs
VI. Expected Change in the Situation Should Action Be Delayed or Not
Taken
VII. Outstanding Policy Issues
VIII. Enforcement
IX. Recommendation
Enforcement Addendum
Attachments
OSWER Publication 9360.3-01, "Superfund Removal Procedures—Action Memorandum Guidance"
(December 1990), EPA/540/P-90/004, PB90-274473.
16
-------
1.7 ACTION MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED)
For More Information:
OSWER Publication 9360.3-01, "Superfund Removal Procedures—Action
Memorandum Guidance" (December 1990), EPA/540/P-90/004,
PB90-274473.
1.8 ON-SCENE COORDINATOR REPORTS
As currently stated in section 300.165 of the NCP, within 1 year after completion of
removal activities involving a major release, or when requested by the Regional Response Team
(RRT), the OSC/RPM must submit to the RRT a complete report on the removal operation and the
actions taken. A copy of the report must also be sent to the Secretary of the National Response
Team (NRT). The report shall record the situation as it developed, the actions taken, the resources
committed, and the problems encountered.
There is an established format for OSC reports set out in section 300.165 of the NCP. The
report must contain the following:
• Summary of Events—a chronological narrative of all events, including:
Location of the hazardous substance
- Cause of the discharge or release
Initial situation
- Efforts to obtain response by responsible parties
Organization of the response, including State participation
- Resources committed
- Content and time of notice to natural resources trustees
Federal or State trustee damage assessment activities and efforts to replace
or restore damaged natural resources
Details of any threat abatement action taken
Treatment/disposal/alternative technology approaches pursued and followed
Public information/community relations activities.
• Effectiveness of removal actions taken by:
- Responsible party(ies)
- State and local entities
Federal agencies and special teams
Contractors, private groups, and volunteers (if applicable).
• Difficulties encountered—a list of items that affected the response, with particular
attention to issues of intergovernmental coordination.
17
-------
1.8 ON-SCENE COORDINATOR REPORTS (CONTINUED)
• Recommendations, including:
- Means to prevent a recurrence of the discharge or release
- Improvement of response actions
Recommended changes in the NCP, regional contingency plan, area
contingency plan, OSC contingency plan or other local emergency response
plans.
18
-------
CHAPTER 2
CONDUCTING THE
ENGINEERING EVALUATION/COST ANALYSIS (EE/CA)
2.1 OVERVIEW
In 1987, the Emergency Response Division began development of the first draft guidance
on Engineering Evaluations/Cost Analyses (EE/CAs) for non-time-critical removal actions.
Because issuance of a final EE/CA guidance was delayed pending the outcome of issues related to
the NCP revisions, in 1988 a draft outline was distributed to assist the Regions in preparing
EE/CAs. This chapter replaces the 1988 memo to help the Regions in fulfilling the goals of the
EE/CA, which are to:
• Satisfy environmental review requirements for removal actions
• Satisfy administrative record requirements for improved documentation of removal
action selection
• Provide a framework for evaluating and selecting alternative technologies.
Non-time-critical removal actions will be the appropriate response for a variety of sites and
will range in scope from small-scale, low-cost actions to complicated multi-media response actions
requiring exemptions from the statutory time and/or dollar limits. Non-time-critical removal
actions may be interim or final actions; they may be the first and only action at a site, or one of a
series of planned response actions. The scope of the non-time-critical removal action will
determine the detail of the EE/CA. The EE/CA is a flexible document tailored to the scope, goals,
and objectives of the non-time-critical removal action. It should contain only those data necessary
to support the selection of a response alternative, and rely upon existing documentation whenever
possible.
The range of site characteristics affecting the non-time-critical removal action forms a
continuum. At one end are sites where the non-time-critical removal action is the first and only
action expected at a site and where no other data are available. In this case, the EE/CA should
provide definitive information on the source, nature, and extent of contamination, and risks
presented by the site. At the other end of the continuum are sites where the non-time-critical
removal action is one of a series of response actions, where a completed RI is or will be available,
and where the nature and extent of contamination and the risk presented by the site have been or
will be determined. In this case, the EE/CA would be similar to a focused FS, concentrating on the
analysis of perhaps two or three appropriate alternatives and providing reference to existing
information on the nature and extent of contamination and risks.
Many non-time-critical removal actions may occur at sites with characteristics that fall
within these extremes. OSCs/RPMs should tailor the EE/CA to match the specific goals and
objectives of the non-time-critical removal action planned for a given site. The goals of the
removal should be based on the relevant factor(s) listed in sections 300.415(b)(2)(i)-(viii) of the
NCP. The relevant factors should be cited in the EE/CA Approval Memorandum as justification
for conducting the EE/CA. The scope of the action takes into account two major considerations:
the physical portion of the site to be addressed and whether the action represents a final or interim
step toward addressing a particular exposure pathway.
19
-------
2.1 OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
Specific objectives are then developed for the site. Removal action objectives generally
consist of environmental medium-specific goals for protecting human health and the environment.
The objectives should be as specific as possible, but not so specific that the range of alternatives
that can be developed is unduly limited. Removal action objectives should identify, for example,
the contaminants of concern and exposure route(s) and receptor(s).
The scope of the non-time-critical removal action (e.g., an interim action conducted during
an ongoing remedial effort) and the specific objectives determine the information to be collected
during the EE/CA. Accordingly, qualitative risk information that identifies pathways of concern
and concentrations of contaminants above standards could have been documented at the site during
the RI, and may be referred to in the EE/CA; a separate risk assessment is not necessary to support
the non-time-critical removal action. Data to characterize the nature and extent of contamination
should be limited to those needed to support the specific objectives of the non-time-critical removal
action, supplementing existing data (e.g., the existing RI/FS) to the extent appropriate. Finally, an
initial screening of alternatives generally will not be necessary; only a few viable alternatives
relevant to the EE/CA objectives should be identified and analyzed.
As noted in Chapter 1, an EE/CA must be completed for all non-time-critical removal
actions under CERCLA as required by section 300.415(b)(4)(i) of the NCP. The goals of the
EE/CA are to identify the objectives of the removal action and to analyze the effectiveness,
implementability, and cost of various alternatives that may satisfy these objectives. Thus, an
EE/CA serves an analogous function, but is more streamlined than the RI/FS conducted for
remedial actions. Soliciting and responding to public comments on the administrative record,
including the EE/CA, is required by section 300.820(a) of the NCP. (See Appendix C for a side-
by-side comparison of the EE/CA process and the RI/FS process.)
The results of the EE/CA, along with EPA's response decision, are summarized in the
Action Memorandum. The costs of performing an EE/CA, which is considered a CERCLA section
104(b)(l) study, are not counted toward the $2 million statutory limit on removal actions.
Exhibit 3, on the following page, depicts the process for developing an EE/CA.
20
-------
2.1 OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
EXHIBIT 3
EE/CA Development Process
EE/CA
Executive Summary
Site Characterization
Identification of
Removal Action
Objectives
Identification and
Analysis of
Removal Action
Alternatives
Comparative
Analysis of
Removal Action
Alternatives
Recommended
Removal Action
Alternative
Public Comment
Period
(at least 30 days)
This chapter provides guidance on the components of the EE/CA Approval Memorandum,
as shown in Exhibit 4, on the following page, and the EE/CA, as shown in Exhibit 5. The chapter
discusses and provides checklists for each section of the EE/CA; however, each section can be
modified to satisfy special requirements of the removal action or to justify the selection of a specific
alternative.
For More Information:
1. CERCLA §104(b)(l), Information; Studies and Investigations
2. NCP:
§300.415, Removal Action
§300.415(b)(2), Appropriateness Factors
§300.415(b)(4)(i), EE/CA Requirement
21
-------
2.1 OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
EXHIBIT 4
EE/CA Approval Memorandum
Q Subject
Q Background
Q Threat to Public Health, Welfare, or the Environment (Includes Expected Change
If No Action Taken)
Q Imminent and Substantial Endangerment If Present
Q Enforcement Actions
Q Proposed Project/Oversight and Cost
Q Approval/Disapproval
2.2 EE/CA APPROVAL MEMORANDUM
In general, the EE/CA Approval Memorandum is prepared once the need for a non-time-
critical removal action has been determined; a removal site evaluation may have been completed, or
if the site is on the NPL, information may also be available from other sources. The EE/CA
Approval Memorandum is not a part of the EE/CA, but is part of the administrative record for the
site.
The EE/CA Approval Memorandum serves important functions. First, it secures
management approval and funding approval to conduct the EE/CA or, for PRP-lead actions, to
provide oversight of EE/CAs. If the action is PRP-lead, provisions for oversight funding will be
contained in an administrative order and should be included in an Approval Memorandum.
Second, the memorandum documents that the situation meets the NCP criteria for initiating a
removal action and that the required action is non-time-critical. Third, it provides a finding of an
actual or threatened release from the site and, if present, a finding of an imminent and substantial
endangerment, or refers to a document establishing such a determination. The Approval
Memorandum also provides general information pertaining to the site background; threats to public
health, welfare, or the environment posed by the site (including expected changes in the site
situation if no action is taken or if the action is delayed); enforcement activities related to the site;
and estimated EE/CA costs.
The EE/CA Approval Memorandum should indicate a current or potential threat to public
health, welfare, or the environment. The memorandum should focus on providing sufficient
information that such a threat or potential threat could exist, while the EE/CA will provide the
information for EPA to determine that such a threat or potential threat actually exists. The
preliminary identification of exposures is based on information obtained from the PA or SI and
possibly other previous investigations. The OSC/RPM should develop a conceptual site model as
a starting point for this analysis. The model identifies potential releases, potential areas of
contamination, chemicals of concern, possible routes of exposure, possible routes of contaminant
transport, and potential exposure pathways.
This potential for exposure indicates the likelihood of meeting the NCP criteria for taking a
removal action, which in turn justifies the need for conducting the EE/CA. For example, risk
consideration can identify the possibility of exposure of nearby populations, animals, or the food
chain to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Similarly, this preliminary risk
22
-------
2.2 EE/CA APPROVAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED)
information may also indicate the possibility of contamination of drinking water or sensitive
environments or other situations or factors that may pose threats to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
The Regional Administrator (or authorized designee) evaluates the EE/CA Approval
Memorandum and provides authorization. Funds expended to prepare an EE/CA Approval
Memorandum are CERCLA 104(b)(l) monies and are not counted toward the $2 million statutory
limit for removal actions.
For More Information:
1. CERCLA §104(b)(i), Information; Studies and Investigations.
2. NCP:
§300.415(m)(4)(i), Community Relations
§300.415(b)(4), EE/CA Requirement
EXHIBIT 5
EE/CA Outline
Q Executive Summary
Q Site Characterization
Q Site description and background
Q Previous removal actions
Q Source, nature, and extent of contamination
Q Analytical data
Q Streamlined risk evaluation
Q Identification of Removal Action Objectives
Q Statutory limits on removal actions
Q Determination of removal scope
Q Determination of removal schedule
Q Planned remedial activities
Q Identification and Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives
Q Effectiveness
Q Implementability
U Cost
Q Comparative Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives
Q Recommended Removal Action Alternative
2.3 EE/CA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The EE/CA Executive Summary provides a general overview of the contents of the EE/CA.
It should contain a brief discussion of the site and the current or potential threat posed by site
23
-------
2.3 EE/CA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
conditions. The Executive Summary should also identify the scope and objectives of the removal
action, as well as the removal action alternatives. Finally, this section of the EE/CA should
provide information on the recommended removal action alternative.
The Executive Summary is intended to make the contents of the EE/CA more accessible to
review by the public, and is analogous in this respect to the Proposed Plan used in the remedial
process. This summary can then be used in the Action Memorandum, which should include a
description of the EE/CA.
2.4 SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The EE/CA should summarize available data on the physical, demographic, and other
characteristics of the site and surrounding areas. These data may be available from a removal site
evaluation, from previous investigations, or from other EPA activities at the site (e.g., work in
preparation for NPL listing). Documents providing information for the EE/CA should be placed in
the administrative record for the site. Whatever the source, the data on the site must provide
background engineering information for analysis of removal alternatives. Because of the CERCLA
preference for treatment over containment or land disposal, it is important that alternatives that
employ treatment and that yield permanent solutions be fully evaluated for non-time-critical
removal actions and early remedial actions. Furthermore, potential differences between early
action and long-term action data quality objectives and risk assessment goals should be reconciled
as early as possible. Therefore, EPA should coordinate activities of the OSC/RPM with those of
the site assessment manager, risk assessor, and enforcement/legal staff to ensure appropriate data
are collected to characterize the site.
Information about the site may be readily available from many sources, including:
• Scoring packages for NPL sites
• Removal site evaluations
• Remedial PA/SI reports
• EE/CA Approval Memoranda
RI/FSs
RODs
• State and local government reports
• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) or State public
health agencies
• State Historic Preservation Officer
• Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
• CERCLA section 104(e) information requests
• Newspaper articles
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enforcement actions
• Published engineering evaluations and technical reference documents
• Documents from other Federal agencies, such as U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
maps and Federal Emergency Management Agency evacuation reports
• Company records
• Employee interviews
• EPCRA—Toxic Release Inventory data.
24
-------
2.4 SITE CHARACTERIZATION (CONTINUED)
Site Description and Background
The site description includes current and historical information. This information may help
identify hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants of concern, or areas of the site requiring
additional sampling. In gathering this information, OSCs/RPMs should review State, local, and
Federal permit files, construction records, and local deed records for information on previous
owners to determine materials produced, stored, or disposed of at the site. CERCLA section
104(e) information requests should also be considered. In addition, interviews should be
conducted, as necessary, with neighbors of the site or past employees who can describe past
operational practices or identify other past employees. The site background may include historical
and aerial photographs. The EE/CA should document these data to convey a clear understanding
of the nature of the site.
The site description section of the EE/CA should include the following types of information
where available and as appropriate to the site-specific conditions and the scope of the removal
action:
• Site location
Street address and crossroads
- USGS topographic map quadrangle
Latitude/longitude
• Type of facility and operational status
- Materials manufactured, stored, or disposed on-site
- Estimated quantities of contaminants and potential hazards
- Years of operation
- Present/prior site use
- Regulatory history, including previous responses, investigations, and
litigation by State, local, and Federal agencies
• Structures/topography
Facility size/dimensions
- Boundary descriptions
Land cover/vegetation/stresses to topography
- Utilities/transportation features
- Buildings
- Surface water bodies/conveyances
Drainage channels/pathways
Historically/archaeologically significant features
Sewer lines/manholes
Stormwater drainage pipes
- Open ditches/canals
- Power lines/pipelines
• Geology/soil information
Depth to aquifer
Soil types (surface and vadose zones)
- Local geological formulations
Surface water hydrology and hydrogeology
25
-------
2.4 SITE CHARACTERIZATION (CONTINUED)
• Surrounding land use and populations
- Residential, industrial, or commercial land use
- Possible pathways of exposure
Identification of sensitive populations
- Estimate of population densities within potentially affected radius
- Description of drinking water sources
- National Historic Preservation Act considerations
• Sensitive ecosystems
- Wetlands, wildlife breeding areas
- Wild and scenic rivers
Connection to the human food chain or food chains of other organisms
Sensitive and/or endangered species
- Coastal zones
• Meteorology
- Rainfall/snowfall
- Temperature ranges
Wind conditions
Previous Removal Actions
The site characterization section of the EE/CA should also describe any previous removal
actions at the site. Exhibit 6, on the following page, shows useful information that may be
obtained from a previous removal action and its applicability to the current EE/CA. Previous
information, if relevant, may be organized as follows:
• The scope and objectives of the previous removal action
• The amount of time spent on the previous removal action
• The amount of money spent on the previous removal action
• The nature and extent of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants treated
or controlled during the previous removal action
• The technologies used and/or treatment levels used for the previous removal action.
Like all documents that serve as the basis for Superfund decisions, EE/CAs are subject to
public review and must be part of the administrative record. Although confidential and
enforcement-sensitive documents are typically not relied upon in selecting response actions, when
they are relied upon they should be contained in a separate confidential portion of both the EE/CA
and the administrative record. Confidential information includes the following:
• Trade secrets, commercial or financial information
• State secrets
• Confidential informant files
• Privacy Act privileged information, attorney-client privileged information, and
attorney work product privileged information
• Information exempted by other statutes.
26
-------
2.4 SITE CHARACTERIZATION (CONTINUED)
Enforcement-sensitive information that generally should not be placed in the administrative
record file includes:
Financial status of PRPs
• Record of previous negotiations with PRPs and the results
• Investigatory files relating to law enforcement
Additional information on enforcement history, strategy, discussion, and
recommendations.
EXHIBIT 6
Information From Previous Removal Actions Applicable To Current EE/CA
Information From
Previous Removals
Applicability To Current EE/CA
Nature and Extent of Contaminants
Treatability of Compounds
Equipment/Utilities at Site
Site-Specific Conditions
This information may allow the OSC/RPM to narrow the scope
of evaluation to certain areas of the site or to specific analyses.
Previous use of a technology may affect the decision to use
the same technology again.
If the previous removal action resulted in supplies and
equipment being left at the site or provision of specific utilities
(e.g., electrical power, sewer line), this information may affect
the choice of treatment/control options employed.
Lessons learned from a previous removal action are valuable to
the current EE/CA. Specific examples could include seasonal
weather patterns affecting technology applications or site
access limitations because of vehicle transportation routes.
Source, Nature, and Extent of Contamination
To the extent possible, site characterization data should be gathered during the removal site
evaluation to support the EE/CA, unless such data were gathered in prior investigations. Existing
information may be useful in determining the location(s) of contamination at a particular site. This
information may include:
• Location(s) of the hazardous substance(s), pollutant(s), or contaminant(s)
• Quantity, volume, size, or magnitude of the contamination
• Physical and chemical attribute(s) of the hazardous substance(s), pollutant(s), or
contaminant(s)
• Target(s) potentially affected by the site.
27
-------
2.4 SITE CHARACTERIZATION (CONTINUED)
The source of the contamination for a removal action is often well defined. However, if the
source, nature, and extent of contamination cannot be readily identified, the OSC/RPM should
survey the area. Contamination sources and locations can often be determined by:
• Using nonanalytical methods, including geophysical surveys, which may indicate
the presence of buried objects, such as drums
• Examining aerial photographs (especially those taken over a period of time), which
may indicate land areas or drainage patterns that have been disturbed
• Reviewing past operations and information from the Toxic Release Inventory and
interviewing past or current employees, which may help determine the source of
contamination.
If contamination is found in a containment vessel (e.g., under- or above-ground storage
tanks, drums, lagoons), the integrity of the vessels should be determined. The integrity may have
an impact on the selection of the removal action.
Analytical Data
The analytical data section presents quantifiable data collected for the EE/CA. This section
begins with existing data and expands as additional data are collected. When sufficient data are
collected, significant findings should be presented in a narrative discussion. The actual data can be
presented in tables, either within the section or in an appendix, or incorporated by reference to the
document containing the data.
Sampling should typically be performed in accordance with accepted EPA and Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. Where feasible, sampling should be coordinated through
the integrated assessment approach of SACM. Where a SACM approach is used, appropriate data
quality objectives should be used for decisions in support of remedial and removal actions. If the
site is not already on the NPL, sample collection and analysis should generally ensure that data
generated will also support assessment of whether NPL listing and remedial action are appropriate.
Analytical data from studies conducted by EPA or other groups (e.g., State or local health
or environmental authorities or PRPs) are useful in characterizing the site. Reviewing any soil,
water, or waste analyses will help OSCs/RPMs determine the precision, accuracy,
representativeness, completeness, and comparability of previous sampling. These parameters can
be evaluated by examining the results of routine quality control procedures, such as replicate
samples and/or analyses, replicate spiked samples and/or analyses, field blanks, method blanks,
and analysis of standard reference materials.
To reflect SACM's integrated assessment approach, future guidance will further address
data collection and analysis to support removal actions, early remedial actions, and long-term
actions. The Environmental Response Team (ERT) is currently developing integrated guidance on
air, waste, and water sampling, and ecological assessment. All data used to justify a non-time-
critical action should be supported by quality control data. Furthermore, these data should be
28
-------
2.4 SITE CHARACTERIZATION (CONTINUED)
evaluated based on quality assurance documentation. Following this quality assurance and control
process, data can be compared to existing health- or risk-based standards to determine the nature of
the threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Streamlined Risk Evaluation
The streamlined risk evaluation is a new type of evaluation, intermediate in scope between
the limited risk evaluation undertaken for emergency removal actions and the conventional baseline
assessment normally conducted for remedial actions. This streamlined risk evaluation can help
justify taking a removal action and identify what current or potential exposures should be
prevented. The risk evaluation uses sampling data from the site to identify the chemicals of
concern, provides an estimate of how and to what extent people might be exposed to these
chemicals, and provides an assessment of the health effects associated with these chemicals. A
streamlined risk evaluation projects the potential risk of health problems occurring if no cleanup
action is taken at a site. Therefore, the results of the streamlined risk evaluation help EPA decide
whether to take a cleanup action at the site, what exposures need to be addressed by the action, and
in some cases define appropriate cleanup levels.
In planning a non-time-critical removal action, OSCs/RPMs should consult with the
Regional risk assessors on potential action and cleanup levels. The risk evaluation at the site
should remain the responsibility of EPA. Since removal and remedial action cleanup levels may
differ, all early action decisions should consider the possible long-term action and corresponding
cleanup levels. The OSC/RPM should ensure that all risk assessment activities are consistent with
any future remedial action remaining to be taken (or potential for listing, if the site is not on the
NPL) to achieve consistent risk goals. OSCs/RPMs should refer to OSWER Publication 9285.7-
01B, "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Part A, Interim Final" (December 1989), EPA/540/1-89/002, PB90-155581, for guidance on
conducting risk evaluations.
For the EE/CA, the streamlined risk evaluation should focus on the specific problem that
the removal action is intended to address. For example, if the non-time-critical removal action is to
install a ground water containment system, the risk evaluation should address risk due to
consumption and use of ground water. If the action is intended to address a particular source of
contamination, the risk evaluation should address the risks related only to that source of
contamination.
To assist in focusing the risk evaluation on specific site problems, OSCs/RPMs should rely
on the conceptual site model and data developed during site characterization. A risk evaluation that
identifies only contaminants of concern in the affected media, contaminant concentrations, and the
toxicity associated with the chemical can be sufficient to justify taking an action. In some
situations, exposure pathways can be identified as an obvious threat to human health or the
environment by comparing EE/CA contaminant concentrations to standards that are potential
chemical-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for the action.
These may include non-zero Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for ground water or leachate, or State air quality standards for
contaminants that may volatilize or be entrained by the wind. When potential ARARs for
chemicals of concern do not exist for a specific contaminant, risk-based chemical concentrations
should be used.
29
-------
2.4 SITE CHARACTERIZATION (CONTINUED)
Where standards for one or more contaminants in a given medium are clearly exceeded, a
removal action is generally warranted, and further quantitative assessment that considers all
chemicals, their potential additive effects, or additivity of multiple exposure pathways, are
generally not necessary. In cases where standards are not clearly exceeded, or where the available
information is deficient or of questionable quality, a more thorough risk assessment may be
advisable before deciding whether to take a removal action.
In most, if not all, PRP-and State-lead actions with no RI/FS or other site evaluation and
little likelihood of future EPA remedial action, a conventional risk assessment will be necessary to
evaluate all potential pathways. If more substantial information or data are needed regarding risks
posed at a site (e.g., due to insufficient data quality from prior site work), OSCs/RPMs should not
hesitate to request supplementary risk information before any type of response action is selected,
being careful to justify any additional work that may be required. However, only in the case where
the non-time-critical action will be the only Fund-lead action expected at the site should
OSCs/RPMs consider performing a risk assessment that addresses all potential exposure
pathways.
For More Information:
1. CERCLA § 104(e), Information Gathering and Access
2. OSWER Publication 9200.2-16FS, "Quality Assurance for Superfund
Environmental Data Collection Activities" (February 1993), PB93-963273.
3. OSWER Publication 9285.7-01B, "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim Final"
(December 1989), EPA/540/1-89/002, PB90-155581.
4. OSWER Publication 9360.4-01, "Quality Assurance/Quality Control Guidance
for Removal Activities—Sampling QA/QC Plan and Data Validation Procedures
(Interim Final)" (April 1990), EPA/540/G-90/004, PB90-274481.
5. OSWER Publication 9360.4-02, "Compendium of ERT Soil Sampling and
Surface Geophysics Procedures" (January 1991), EPA/540/P-91/006,
PB91-921273.
6. OSWER Publication 9360.4-03, "Compendium of ERT Surface Water and
Sediment Sampling Procedures" (January 1991), EPA/540/P-91/005,
PB91-921274.
7. OSWER Publication 9360.4-05, "Compendium of ERT Air Sampling
Procedures" (May 1992), PB92-963406.
8. OSWER Publication 9360.4-06, "Compendium of ERT Ground Water
Sampling Procedures" (January 1991), EPA/540/P-91/007, PB91-921275.
9 OSWER Publication 9360.4-07, "Compendium of ERT Waste Sampling
Procedures" (January 1991), EPA/540/P-91/008, PB91-921276.
10. OSWER Publication 9360.4-08, "Compendium of ERT Toxicity Testing
Procedures" (January 1991), EPA/540/P-91/009, PB91-921271.
11. OSWER Publication 9360.4-10, "Removal Program—Representative Soil
Sampling Guidance" (November 1991), PB92-963408.
30
-------
2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF REMOVAL ACTION SCOPE, GOALS, AND
OBJECTIVES
Identifying the scope, goals, and objectives for a removal action is a critical step in the
EE/CA and in the conduct of non-time-critical removal actions. At any release, regardless of
whether the site is on the NPL, where the lead agency determines there is a threat to public health,
welfare, or the environment, a removal action may be taken to abate, prevent, minimize, stabilize,
mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release.
The following example illustrates this process at an NPL site with an ongoing RI/FS, and
where an opportunity exists to conduct a non-time-critical removal action. The non-time-critical
removal action will minimize migration of contaminated ground water and contaminants from
subsurface soil but is considered an interim action because it is expected that the remedial action
will ultimately address the area of concern.
hi this example, the goal of the non-time-critical removal action is to minimize migration of
contaminated ground water and to begin to reduce contaminants in the soil that are the source of
ground water contamination. This goal corresponds to section 300.415(b)(2)(iv) of the NCP,
which identifies "high levels of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants in soils largely
at or near the surface, that may migrate" as a factor to be considered in determining the
appropriateness of a removal action.
Five specific objectives are then developed for the site:
• Minimize migration of contaminated ground water through installation of a
containment system
• Initiate removal of volatile organic compounds from contaminated soils through
in-situ treatment
• Dewater areas necessary to treat effectively the decontaminated soils
• Install and operate appropriate treatment systems for ground water and vapor
generated by containment, dewatering, and soil treatment that will prevent
unacceptable discharges or emissions.
• Dispose of waste streams from the removal action.
These objectives should be achieved by meeting specified cleanup levels while working
within the statutory limits and attaining ARARs to the extent practicable. Exhibit 7 provides a
checklist of factors to consider in developing EE/CA objectives.
Statutory Limits on Removal Actions
Because the EE/CA is a public document and readers may not be aware of the statutory
limits on removal actions, the objectives section of the EE/CA should briefly explain the $2 million
and 12-month statutory limits for Fund-financed removal actions pursuant to section 104(c.)(l) of
CERCLA. If the need for an exemption is determined early in the action, the details should be
described in the EE/CA as well as in the Action Memorandum requesting the exemption.
31
-------
2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF REMOVAL ACTION SCOPE, GOALS, AND
OBJECTIVES (CONTINUED)
Determination of Removal Scope
The EE/CA should help define the scope of the removal action. The scope of the action
could be, for example, total site cleanup, site stabilization, or surface cleanup of hazardous
substances. It is critical that removal actions at non-NPL sites consider the potential for future
listing to ensure the goals of the removal are consistent with any potential long-term remediation.
When a non-time-critical removal action will be the only or last action taken to clean up a potential
NPL site, the EE/CA should provide adequate documentation that activities performed at the site
are sufficient to meet completion requirements.
Specific objectives vary with the type of removal. If cleanup levels are necessary as part of
a specific objective, OSCs/RPMs employ several methods to determine these levels. Examples of
current practice include applying an appropriate Federal or State ARAR, consulting a Regional risk
assessor, or requesting support from ATSDR or ERT.
Specific objectives that clearly define the scope of the removal action are particularly
important when the site poses multiple hazards and the response actions will be conducted in
phases. OSCs/RPMs should always consider how the removal action would best contribute to the
efficient performance of any remedial action to be taken, as required under CERCLA section
104(a)(2). OSWER Publication 9360.0-13, "Guidance on Implementation of the 'Contribute to
Remedial Performance' Provision" (April 6,1987), provides additional guidance on implementing
CERCLA section 104(a)(2). For example, if EPA or the State plans to begin a long-term remedial
action at the site in 2 years, the removal action should be designed to ensure that the site is
stabilized until remedial action begins. The threats that meet the NCP removal criteria should be
fully addressed, if possible, given the statutory limits on removal actions.
Determination of Removal Schedule
The general schedule for removal activities, including both the start and completion time for
the non-time-critical removal action, should be part of the EE/CA. (A time-critical or emergency
removal action may occur at any point from the planning phase to the completion of a non-time-
critical removal action.) Although EE/CAs are only required when a planning period of at least 6
months is available, the nature of the threat may still dictate that action be initiated within 12
months or some other specific time period. The start date may also be influenced by weather, PRP
negotiations, or Regional resources. For example, Regions should consult with Headquarters
prior to taking any early action requiring funding beyond the Region's allowance. Also, weather
can affect the schedule if the removal is to be implemented before winter. The time available before
the removal action can be a significant factor in evaluating alternative technologies, since
implementing technologies can necessitate considerable lead time.
The completion time should also be estimated for the removal action, considering the nature
of the threat. It may be necessary to achieve beneficial results within a certain time frame to ensure
adequate protection of public health and the environment. The time needed to sample treated
wastes or other media prior to disposal should be factored into the schedule. Another important
factor influencing the removal schedule is the statutory limit on Fund-financed removal actions.
For Fund-lead sites not expected to qualify for either the emergency or consistency exemptions, the
OSC/RPM should select a removal action alternative that can be implemented within the statutory
limits. For Fund-lead sites expected to qualify for an exemption, the objective should be to select a
32
-------
2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF REMOVAL ACTION SCOPE, GOALS, AND
OBJECTIVES (CONTINUED)
removal action alternative that can be implemented within a reasonable time limit. Factors such as
weather and the availability of Regional resources may also affect the completion time.
The flexibility in the removal schedule can vary greatly from site to site. Some sites may
require a strict schedule, while others allow wider latitude in start and completion times. For a
PRP-lead site the 1-year statutory restriction on removal actions is not applicable. In such cases, it
may be advisable to establish a removal schedule in an administrative order. The schedule
established for a site can be an important decision criterion to evaluate removal action alternatives
based on their implementation times.
For More Information:
1. CFJRCLA:
§104(a)(2), Removal Action
§104(c)(l), Statutory Limits
2. NCP §300.415(b)(2)(i)-(viii), Appropriateness Factors
3. OSWER Publication 9360.0-13, "Guidance on Implementation of the
'Contribute to Remedial Performance' Provision" (April 6, 1987).
2.6 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES
Based on the analysis of the nature and extent of contamination and on the cleanup
objectives developed in the previous section, the OSC/RPM should identify and assess a limited
number of alternatives appropriate for addressing the removal action objectives. If the information
a Region typically uses to evaluate action alternatives is not sufficient, or if data quality is suspect,
OSCs/RPMs should collect any additional technical information needed. If EPA is conducting
oversight activities at the site, PRPs or State agencies may provide the information.
Treatment Technologies
Whenever practicable, the alternatives selection process should consider the CERCLA
preference for treatment over conventional containment or land disposal approaches to address the
principal threat at a site. Although CERCLA section 121(b) appears to apply only to remedial
actions, the overall strategy scheme leads to the conclusion that this preference is also an
appropriate goal for removal actions. Removal actions, however, cannot conform entirely to
requirements for remedial actions because of site related time constraints and statutory limits on
remedial actions. To identify alternatives, the OSC/RPM can draw from EPA experience with the
particular technologies and contaminants involved, as well as technical advice from ERT, Office of
Research and Development's (ORD)-START, the Technology Innovation Office (TIO), the
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation program, EPA laboratories and task forces,
technology vendors, and other sources.
33
-------
2.6 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
While treatability studies often need not be performed for proven technologies, in many
cases a study is necessary to assure the attainment of treatment objectives. An EE/CA often allows
time to plan and conduct a treatability study.
OSCs/RPMs should refer to OSWER Publication 9380.0-17, "Furthering the Use of
Innovative Treatment Technologies in OSWER Programs" (August 1991), EPA/540/2-90/004,
PB91-921366, for further guidance on assessing treatment options.
Based on the available information, only the most qualified technologies that apply to the
media or source of contamination should be discussed in the EE/CA. The use of presumptive
remedy guidance can in many cases provide an immediate focus to the discussion and selection of
alternatives, speeding the process by limiting the universe of effective alternatives for the non-time-
critical removal action. Presumptive remedies involve the use of remedial technologies that have
been selected in the past at similar sites or for similar contaminants. By evaluating technologies
that have been consistently selected at similar sites, a presumption can be developed that a
particular remedy or set of remedies is appropriate for a specific site type. EPA is developing
several presumptive remedies for a variety of response situations. Currently, information is
available for wood treater sites in OSWER Publications 9355.0-46FS and 9355.0-46,
"Technology Selection Guide for Wood Treater Sites" (May 1993), PB93-963505. This
information was previously cited as OSWER Publications 9360.0-46FS and 9360.0-46. OSWER
guidance is under development for solvent and municipal landfill sites.
A limited number of alternatives, including any identified presumptive remedies, should be
selected for detailed analysis. Each of the alternatives should be described with enough detail so
that the entire treatment process can be understood. For example, if one of the alternatives is
incineration, information on whether the incineration will occur on-site or off-site should be
provided, as well as the volume of waste to be treated, the disposition of the treatment residuals,
and any ARARs that would affect significantly the action, such as the land disposal restrictions.
The technical implementability of this set of potentially applicable alternatives can then be evaluated
based on readily available information from the site characterization phase. Specific technologies
may not be applicable to the treatment of wastes in the concentration and form found at the site, and
so may be disregarded. The OSC/RPM, however, must avoid even the appearance that a
technology has been pre-selected. All selected technologies should be fully considered.
Treatment Technology Information Sources
Appendix D from OSWER Publication 9355.3-01, "Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) Under CERCLA" (October 1988), EPA/540/G-
89/004, PB89-184626, provides a bibliography on various treatment technologies. In addition,
EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing, and
managing technology research, development, and demonstration programs. OSWER Publication
9380.3-03, "Inventory of Treatability Study Vendors" (March 1990), EPA/540/2-90/003a, PB91-
228395, helps link the researcher and the user community.
Three additional databases can assist OSCs/RPMs in evaluating the effectiveness and
availability of various treatment technologies. The Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Center (ATTIC) is an on-line computer database that may be accessed with a personal computer
and modem by calling 301-670-3808. ATTIC is a comprehensive, automated system that
34
-------
2.6 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
integrates hazardous waste data into a centralized, searchable resource. Data about hazardous
waste treatment technologies are found in many forms in this system, including:
Literature search databases
Expert lists
Treatability databases
Fate and transport databases
Cost models
Case histories
Expert systems.
The central ATTIC database contains more than 1,400 technical documents collected in a key-
word-searchable format. ORD Publication EPA/600/M-91/049, "Alternative Treatment
Technology Information Center-ATTIC Brochure" (August 1991) provides additional information.
Another database operated by TIO is the Technology Vendor Information System for
Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT). This database facilitates communication between
technology vendors and government and private cleanup personnel and describes the capabilities
and experience vendors have with innovative technologies. The database is useful in developing
engineering studies and designs. The VISITT Hotline at 1-800-245-4505 can provide
OSCs/RPMs with additional user information.
The Cleanup Information Bulletin Board (CLU-IN) provides electronic message
capabilities, directories, on-line bulletins, and other cross-database files on innovative
technologies. Special interest groups exist within the system specifically for OSCs/RPMs.
CLU-IN can be accessed with a computer, modem line, and telecommunications software by
calling 301-589-8366.
Defined alternatives are evaluated against the short- and long-term aspects of three broad
criteria: effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Subcriteria to be evaluated under each of the
criteria are identified in Exhibit 7 on the following page.
Effectiveness
The effectiveness of an alternative refers to its ability to meet the objective within the scope
of the removal action. This section of the EE/CA should evaluate each alternative against the scope
of the removal action and against each specific objective for final disposition of the wastes and the
level of cleanup desired. These objectives should be discussed in terms of protectiveness of public
health and the environment.
Overall Protection of Public Health and the Environment
How well each alternative protects public health and the environment should be discussed
in a consistent manner. This discussion draws on assessments conducted under other evaluation
criteria, including long-term effectiveness and permanence, short-term effectiveness, and
compliance with ARARs.
35
-------
EXHIBIT 7
Objectives/Criteria To Be Used in Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
O Effectiveness
Q Protectiveness
Q Protective of public health and community
U Protective of workers during implementation
Q Protective of the environment
a Complies with ARARs
Q Ability to Achieve Removal Objectives
Q Level of treatment/containment expected
Q No residual effect concerns
Q Will maintain control until long-term solution implemented
Q Implementability
Q Technical Feasibility
Q Construction and operational considerations
G Demonstrated performance/useful life
Q Adaptable to environmental conditions
Q Contributes to remedial performance
Q Can be implemented in 1 year
Q Availability
Q Equipment
Q Personnel and services
Q Outside laboratory testing capacity
Q Off-site treatment and disposal capacity
a PRSC
Q Administrative Feasibility
Q Permits required
Q Easements or right-of-ways required
Q Impact on adjoining property
Q Ability to impose institutional controls
Q Likelihood of obtaining an exemption from statutory limits (if
needed)
Q Cost
Q Capital cost
Q PRSC cost
Q Present worth cost
36
-------
2.6 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
The discussion should focus on how each alternative achieves adequate protection and
describe how the alternative will reduce, control, or eliminate risks at the site through the use of
treatment, engineering, or institutional controls. This evaluation should identify any unacceptable
short-term impacts.
Compliance with ARARs and Other Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance
Section 300.415(i) of the NCP requires that Fund-financed removal actions under
CERCLA section 104 and removal actions pursuant to CERCLA section 106 attain ARARs under
Federal or State environmental laws or facility siting laws, to the extent practicable considering the
urgency of the situation and the scope of the removal. At certain sites, ARARs may form the basis
of the removal action objectives.
The detailed analysis should summarize which requirements are applicable or relevant and
appropriate to an alternative and describe how the alternative meets those requirements. To ensure
a full consideration of potential ARARs, OSCs/RPMs may choose to employ a summary table to
list potential ARARs. OSCs/RPMs will then be able to quickly identify particular requirements in
order to plan for compliance or eliminate requirements not of concern for a given site or alternative.
Since the evaluation of a site will produce data relatively quickly on the location of a release
and on the chemical constituents of concern, chemical-specific ARARs and location-specific
ARARs should be identified as promptly as possible upon request by the OSC/RPM. Therefore,
only State standards that are promulgated, identified by the State in a timely manner, and more
stringent than Federal requirements may be applicable or relevant and appropriate. Action-specific
ARARs should be identified later in the process after qualified cleanup technologies are chosen for
analysis hi the EE/CA. The process for identifying and evaluating ARARs during non-time-critical
removal actions is shown in Exhibit 8 on the following page.
In addition to ARARs, EPA may, as appropriate, identify other Federal or State advisories,
criteria, or guidance to be considered (TBC) for a particular release. TBCs are not required by the
NCP; rather, TBCs are meant to complement the use of ARARs. Because ARARs do not exist for
every chemical or circumstance, TBCs may be very useful in determining what is protective of a
site or how to carry out certain actions or requirements. A list of TBCs, such as the EPA Spill
Cleanup Policy, Health Effects Assessments, EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy, and
advisories issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, can be found in the NCP Proposed Rule Preamble, 53 FR
51449-51450 (December 21, 1988).
The EnviroText Retrieval System, a joint project of EPA, DOE, DOD, the Department of
Justice, and the U.S. Army, will be a user-friendly, full-text library search system of multimedia
environmental laws. On-line service as a pilot program is expected to start in Fall 1993, and
should assist greatly in considering potential ARARs at any given site.
37
-------
EXHIBIT 8
Identification and Evaluation of ARARs During
Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions
Engineering Evaluation/
Cost Analysis
Public Comment Period
Selection of Response Action
Action Memorandum
Non-Time-Critical
Removal Action
Implementation
Identify site characteristics that might give rise to
ARARs; identify potential ARARs; request the
State to identify chemical- and location-specific
ARARs.
As potential actions are evaluated, identify
potential action-specific ARARs; determine how
compliance with ARARs would impact cost and
duration of action potentially requiring an
exemption.
If action plan is modified as a result of
comments or other circumstances, identify
new ARARs and reevaluate practicability
of ARARs compliance.
Based on site circumstances, determine
practicability of compliance with ARARs.
Make final determination of action-specific
ARARs; document in Action Memorandum all
ARARs with which compliance is practicable
and provide reasons for any waivers.
38
-------
2.6 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This evaluation assesses the extent and effectiveness of the controls that may be required to
manage the risk posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes at the site. The following
components should be considered for each alternative:
• Magnitude of Risk. This criterion looks at the effectiveness of the alternative and
assesses the risk from waste and residuals remaining at the conclusion of site
activities. This component also evaluates whether the alternative contributes to
future remedial objectives. If the non-time-critical removal action is an interim step
and is expected to be followed by remedial action, this factor could be reduced in
scope or deleted, if appropriate. If the non-time-critical action is the last action
anticipated for a site or release, then the magnitude of risk should be fully evaluated
for the action.
• Adequacy and Reliability of Controls. A completed removal action may require
PRSC, those response activities necessary to sustain the integrity of a Fund-
financed removal action following its conclusion (see Chapter 1). After the removal
is completed, PRSC costs may be paid by the PRP, State or local government, or
the remedial program.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
EPA's policy of preference for treatment (i.e., for technologies that will permanently and
significantly reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances as their principal
element) requires evaluation based upon the following subfactors for a particular alternative:
The treatment process(es) employed and the material(s) it will treat
The amount of the hazardous materials to be destroyed or treated
The degree of reduction expected in toxicity, mobility, or volume
The degree to which the treatment will be irreversible
The type and quantity of residuals that will remain after treatment
Whether the alternative will satisfy the preference for treatment.
The ability of the treatment technology to reduce the principal threats posed by the release,
including the extent to which the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the contaminants are reduced
(either alone or in combination) may be subject to time and applicability restraints, and may be
beyond the scope of an interim removal action when remedial action is indicated.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The short-term effectiveness criterion addresses the effects of the alternative during
implementation before the removal objectives have been met. Alternatives should also be evaluated
with respect to their effects on human health and the environment following implementation. The
following factors should be addressed as appropriate for each alternative:
• Protection of the Community. This factor addresses any risk to the affected
community that results from implementation of the proposed action, whether from
39
-------
2.6 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
air quality impacts, fugitive dusts, transportation of hazardous materials, or other
sources.
• Protection of the Workers. This factor assesses any threats to site workers and the
effectiveness and reliability of protective measures that would be taken.
• Environmental Impacts. This factor evaluates the potential adverse environmental
impacts from the implementation of each alternative. The factor also assesses the
reliability of mitigation measures in preventing or reducing the potential impacts.
• Time Until Response Objectives Are Achieved. This factor estimates the time
needed to achieve protection for the site itself or for individual elements or threats
associated with the site.
Implementability
The implementability criterion addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of
implementing an alternative and the availability of various services and materials required during its
implementation. The following factors should be considered under this criterion.
Technical Feasibility
The EE/CA must assess the ability of the technology to implement the remedy. Technical
difficulties were initially identified during development of alternatives and should be addressed
again in detail for the alternative as a whole. Each alternative should be evaluated for
implementation factors such as assembling, staffing, and operating the alternative within the time
frames in the removal schedule.
The reliability of the technology is also of concern, as technical problems associated with
implementation may delay the schedule. Each alternative should be evaluated for technology
maturity, prior use under similar conditions for similar wastes, and possible difficulty in operation
once it is constructed. Operational difficulties could include the frequency or complexity of
equipment maintenance or controls, the need for raw materials, or the need for a large technical
staff. Potential impacts on the local community during construction operations should also be
evaluated.
The EE/CA should consider environmental conditions not only with respect to the operation
phase of the alternative, but also to the set-up and construction phase. Certain technologies may be
difficult to construct or operate in remote locations. Climate or terrain may severely impact or
eliminate specific alternatives from consideration. For example, an alternative that uses an
oil/water separator or sedimentation tank may be unusable at freezing temperatures. Temperature
and time of year may directly impact a technology's ability to reach a specific site. For example, a
rainy season may make roads to the site inaccessible. Not only will local terrain affect the ability to
locate an alternative, but it may also affect performance. For example, a site located in a valley
may be susceptible to inversions or limited air currents, therefore making incineration
unacceptable.
Potential future remedial actions should also be discussed. Remedial action or a non-time-
critical removal action that completely cleans up an NPL site may trigger the five-year review
40
-------
2.6 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
requirements of CERCLA section 121(c). This evaluation should also consider the operation of
PRSC measures or operation and maintenance (O & M). This discussion should depict how
difficult it would be for EPA to implement these future remedial actions. This is particularly
applicable to an interim action where additional action is expected.
If the site will be receiving long-term remedial treatment, the EE/CA must determine if each
alternative contributes to the efficient performance of any anticipated remedial activities. CERCLA
section 104(a)(2) states that a removal action should, to the extent practicable, contribute to the
efficient performance of any long-term remedial action with respect to the release or threatened
release concerned. Removal actions that do contribute may be eligible for an exemption from the
$2 million/12-month statutory limit on removal actions. OSWER Publication 9360.0- 12A, "Final
Guidance on Implementation of the 'Consistency' Exemption to the Statutory Limits on Removal
Actions" (June 12, 1989), PB90-274465/CCE, states that removal actions should be designed to
avoid wasteful, repetitive, short-term actions that do not contribute to the efficient, cost-effective
performance of a long-term remedial action.
In some cases, it may not be easy to demonstrate removal action consistency with future
remedial action. Remedial actions often cannot be anticipated when an EE/CA is being developed
for a non-time-critical removal action. It may be difficult to show with reasonable certainty that a
removal option would be consistent with a future remedial action. Section 104(a)(2) of CERCLA
provides for discretion in using the practicability standard. Accordingly, OSCs/RPMs should avail
themselves of this discretion when developing and evaluating removal action alternatives that would
provide for partial cleanups of sites.
The ability to monitor the effectiveness of the alternative may also be considered in the
EE/CA. These monitoring considerations would generally not be evaluated for Fund-lead non-
time-critical removal actions where remedial work was planned.
Administrative Feasibility
The administrative feasibility factor evaluates those activities needed to coordinate with
other offices and agencies. The administrative feasibility of each alternative should be evaluated,
including the need for off-site permits, adherence to applicable nonenvironmental laws, and
concerns of other regulatory agencies. Factors that should be considered include, but are not
limited to, the following:
• Statutory Limits. Each alternative should be evaluated for its compliance with the
statutory limits on removal actions. If an alternative requires a statutory exemption
from the $2 million or 12-month limit, the EE/CA should evaluate whether the site
qualifies. If the time or money needed to implement the alternative will exceed the
statutory limit for removal actions, an exemption request, which is part of the
Action Memorandum, should be submitted to Headquarters for review as soon as
possible. Headquarters approval is only required for non-NPL consistency waivers
and for emergency waivers (money, not time).
• Permits and Waivers. The EE/CA should evaluate whether each alternative will
require off-site permits (e.g., building permits). Other factors that may affect the
administrative feasibility include the need for easements, right-of-way agreements,
or zoning variances.
41
-------
2.6 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
Availability of Services and Materials
The EE/CA must determine if off-site treatment, storage, and disposal capacity, equipment,
personnel, services and materials, and other resources necessary to implement an alternative will be
available in time to maintain the removal schedule. Availability of funds to meet PRSC
requirements is also a factor. Several important availability factors are:
• Personnel and Technology. Using the removal action schedule as a guide, the
EE/CA should determine whether a specific alternative will be available from the
manufacturer. Other technologies may require a large number of skilled laborers or
specialists (e.g., welders, pipe fitters, chemical engineers) that may not be readily
available if the site is remote, thus impacting the ability to assemble the removal
action alternative.
• Off-Site Treatment. Storage, and Disposal. If off-site removal and treatment of the
waste is being considered, the EE/CA should address the adequacy of off-site
capacity. If the site is in a remote location, this type of service may not be available
or may be extremely costly because of transportation expenses. OSCs/RPMs
should review OSWER Publication 9834.11, "Revised Procedures for
Implementing Off-Site Response Actions" (November 13, 1987), PB91-
139282/CCE, before evaluating this option. The OSC/RPM and Regional off-site
contact should discuss whether there are treatment facilities in compliance with the
off-site policy that can accept the type of CERCLA waste at the site. [A final rule
addressing this issue is expected in 1993.]
• Services and Materials. This factor involves considering such services as
laboratory testing capacity and turnaround for chemical analyses, adequate supplies
and equipment for on-site activities, or installation of extra utilities (e.g., power
lines, sewer connections).
• Prospective Technologies. This factor assesses whether specific technologies are
generally available for the site. Promising technologies sometimes require further
development before they can be applied at full-scale. The EE/CA should indicate
when a technology would be available for full-scale use. Also, if time allows, the
OSC/RPM may be able to develop specifications to allow competitive bidding for a
treatment contract. This would be of particular use in developing innovative
technologies.
State (Support Agency) Acceptance
The State (or support agency in the case of State-lead sites) may have technical and
administrative concerns. Since States may review the alternatives, their concerns should be
considered in determining the recommended alternative in the EE/CA and in the final selection of
the alternative in the Action Memorandum.
42
-------
2.6 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
Community Acceptance
As with State acceptance, community acceptance of an alternative will be considered when
making a recommendation in the EE/CA and in the final selection of the alternative in the Action
Memorandum.
Cost
Each removal action alternative should be evaluated to determine its projected costs. The
evaluation should compare each alternative's capital and PRSC costs. The present worth of
alternatives that will last longer than 12 months should be calculated. In certain cases,
OSCs/RPMs may conduct a sensitivity analysis of the present worth calculations.
To compare the cost of each alternative, the direct and indirect capital costs and the PRSC
costs of each alternative should be projected. OSWER Publication 9360.0-02C, "Removal Cost
Management System: Version 3.2" (May 1990), EPA/540/P-90/003, PB90-272691, provides
guidance on performing cost projections and daily cost tracking. The following items are
considered capital costs and PRSC costs:
• Direct capital costs
- Construction costs
- Equipment and material costs
- Land and site acquisition costs
- Buildings and services costs
- Relocation expenses
Transport and disposal costs
Analytical costs
Contingency allowances
- Treatment and operating costs
• Indirect capital costs
- Engineering and design expenses
- Legal fees and license or permit costs
- Start-up and shakedown costs
Annual PRSC costs
Operational costs
- Maintenance costs
Auxiliary materials and energy
- Disposal of residuals
Monitoring costs
Support costs.
Many sources of cost information exist, including the ERCS contract price list, vendor
estimates, and estimates for similar projects. For items not currently on the ERCS list and for
projects where outside bids are being considered, cost estimates more than 12 months old should
be updated using an appropriate economic index, such as the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index for construction costs, the Marshall and Stevens Index for treatment
facility costs, the American City and County Municipal Cost Index for manpower costs, and the
43
-------
2.6 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
Producer Price Index for Finished Goods, published by the U.S. Department of Labor in the
Monthly Labor Review. All these information sources can be found in Regional and/or public
libraries.
After identifying and estimating the costs, OSCs/RPMs should calculate the present worth
for removal action alternatives that will last longer than 12 months. Present worth analysis
evaluates expenditures that occur over different time periods by discounting all future costs,
usually PRSC costs, to a common base year, usually the present year. Present worth analysis
produces a single figure representing the amount of money that, if invested in the base year and
dispersed as needed, would cover all costs associated with the alternative. This analysis is
particularly important when comparing technologies with different operating lifetimes. The final
present worth figure and the assumptions used in calculating that figure should be included in the
EE/CA. The detailed computations should be attached as an appendix to the EE/CA.
For alternatives that include only PRSC after 1 year from the start of the removal action, the
total cost of the option over the full life of the project should be calculated. In comparing
alternatives, however, OSCs/RPMs should use the cost of the option to EPA for 1 year, provided
that all PRSC costs will be assumed by another party after 1 year. OSWER Publication 9355.3-20
"Revisions to OMB Circular A-94 on Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit Cost Analysis"
(June 25, 1993) provides information on discount rates for present worth calculations.
In addition, OSCs/RPMs should determine whether a sensitivity analysis is warranted. A
sensitivity analysis assesses the effect that variations in specific assumptions associated with
design, implementation, operation, discount rate, and effective life of an alternative can have on the
present worth. The sensitivity of such costs to uncertainties can be observed by varying the cost
assumptions and noting their effect on the present worth. A sensitivity analysis might be
appropriate when uncertainties exist about the amount of waste present, how quickly a technology
can perform, or the future price of cleanup services.
For More Information:
1. CERCLA:
§104(a), Removal Action
§121, Cleanup Standards
§31 l(b), Alternative or Innovative Treatment Technology Research and
Demonstration Programs
2. NCP §300.415(1), ARARs Attainment
3. Office of Policy Analysis (OPA) Publication, "Guidelines for Performing Regulatory
Impact Analysis" (December 1983).
4. ORD Publication EPA/600/M-91/049, "Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center-ATTIC Brochure" (August 1991).
5. OSWER Publication 9234.1-01, "CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual,
Part 1 (Interim Final)" (August 1988), EPA/540/G-89/006, PB90-272535.
6. OSWER Publication 9234.1 -02, "CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual,
Part 2: Clean Air Act and Other Environmental Statutes and State Requirements"
(August 1989), EPA/540/G-89/009, PB90-148461.
44
-------
2.6 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
, OSWER Publications 9355.0-46FS and 9355.0-46, "Technology Selection Guide
for Wood Treater Sites" (May 1993), PB93-963505, also previously cited as
OSWER Publication 9360.0-46FS and 9360.0-46.
8. OSWER Publication 9355.3-01, "Guidance For Conducting Remedial Investigations
and Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) Under CERCLA" (October 1988), EPA/540/G-
89/004, PB89-184626.
9. OSWER Publication 9355.3-20, "Revisions to OMB Circular A-94 on Guidelines
and Discount Rates for Benefit Cost Analysis" (June 25,1993), PB93-963297.
10. OSWER Publication 9360.3-02, "Superfund Removal Procedures—Guidance on
the Consideration of ARARs During Removal Actions" (August 1991), PB92-
963401/CCE.
11. OSWER Publication 9360.0-02C, "Removal Cost Management System: Version
3.2" (May 1990), EPA/540/P-90/003, PB90-272691.
12. OSWER Publication 9360.0-12A, "Final Guidance on Implementation of the
'Consistency' Exemption to the Statutory Limits on Removal Actions" (June 12,
1989), PB90-274465/CCE.
13. OSWER Publication 9380.0-17, "Furthering the Use of Innovative Treatment
Technologies in OSWER Programs" (August 1991), EPA/540/2-90/004, PB91-
921366.
14. OSWER Publication 9380.3-03, "Inventory of Treatability Study Vendors" (March
1990), EPA/540/2-90/003a, PB91-228395.
15. OSWER Publication 9834.11, "Revised Procedures for Implementing Off-site
Response Actions" (November 13, 1987), PB91-139287/CCE.*
16. OSWER Publication 9834.1 la, "Off-Site Policy RFA or Equivalent Investigation
Requirement at RCRA Treatment and Storage Facilities" (January 4, 1988), PB91-
139295/CCE.*
* A final rule addressing this issue is expected in 1993.
2.7 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Once the alternatives have been described and individually assessed against the criteria, a
comparative analysis should be conducted to evaluate the relative performance of each alternative in
relation to each of the criteria. This is in contrast to the preceding analysis in which each alternative
was analyzed independently without consideration of other alternatives. The purpose of the
comparative analysis is to identify the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative relative to
one another so that key tradeoffs that would affect the remedy selection can be identified.
2.8 RECOMMENDED REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The EE/CA should identify the action that best satisfies the evaluation criteria based on the
comparative analysis in the previous section. This description should briefly describe the
evaluation process used to develop the recommended action. For both Fund-lead and PRP-lead
EE/CAs, EPA should determine the recommended action. This determination may be placed in the
administrative record file concurrently with the EE/CA. This section of the EE/CA may enhance
public involvement efforts by describing clearly why the alternative was recommended. Because
the EE/CA is open to public comment and evaluation and because EPA is required to prepare
45
-------
2.8 RECOMMENDED REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE (CONTINUED)
a written response to significant comments, the recommended alternative may not always be the
final alternative selected in the Action Memorandum. The Action Memorandum and the
administrative record should provide enough detail to justify the final alternative selected.
46
-------
Appendix A
References
OPA Publication, "Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analysis" (December 1983).
ORD Publication EPA/600/M-91/049, "Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center-
ATTIC Brochure" (August 1991).
OSWER Publication 9200.2-02, "Accelerated Response at NPL Sites Guidance"
(December 15,1988), PB 90-25 8302/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9200.2-16FS, "Quality Assurance for Superfund Environmental Data
Collection Activities" (February 1993), PB93-963273.
OSWER Publication 9200.3-01H-1, "Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year
1993" (June 1993), PB92-963276.
OSWER Publication 9200.5-402A, "Contracting and Subcontracting Guide to the Superfund
Program" (May 1992), EPA/540/G-91/012, PR-923.
OSWER Publication 9203.1-021, "Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Bulletin: Presumptive
Remedies for Municipal Landfill Sites, Volume 1, Number 1" (April 1992), PB92-963367.
OSWER Publication 9203.1-03, "Guidance on Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM) under CERCLA and the NCP" (July 7, 1992), PB93-963252.
OSWER Publication 9203.1-03A, "Exercising Flexibility Through the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM)" (October 26, 1992), PB93-963253.
OSWER Publication 9203.1-051, Volume 1, Numbers 1-5 (December 1992)
• Volume 1, Number 1, "Status of Key SACM Program Management Issues—Interim
Guidance" PB93-963262.
• Volume 1, Number 2, "Early Action and Long-Term Action Under SACM—Interim
Guidance" PB93-963263.
• Volume 1, Number 3, "Enforcement Under SACM—Interim Guidance" PB93-963264.
• Volume 1, Number 4, "Assessing Sites Under SACM—Interim Guidance" PB93-963265.
• Volume 1, Number 5, "SACM Regional Decision Teams—Interim Guidance"
PB93-963266.
OSWER Publication 9230.0-03C "Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook"
(January 1992), EPA/540/R-92/009, PB92-963341.
OSWER Publication 9234.1-01, "CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part 1
(Interim Final)" (August 1988), EPA/540/G-89/006, PB90-272535.
OSWER Publication 9234.1-02, "CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part 2: Clean
Air Act and Other Environmental Statutes and State Requirements" (August 1989),
EPA/540/G-89/009, PB90-148461.
47
-------
References (Continued)
OSWER Publication 9240.0-01D, "User's Guide to the Contract Laboratory Program"
(January 1991), EPA/540/P-91/002, PB91-921278.
OSWER Publication 9242.2-0IB, "Emergency Response Cleanup Services (ERGS) Contracts:
User's Manual" (October 1987), PB90-191966/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9242.2-02, "Site-Specific Contracting for Removals" (April 10, 1989),
PB91-215053/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9242.6-01, "ARCS Work Assignment Management, Field Guide"
(January 1989), PB91-214965/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9242.6-07, "Approval of Long-Term Contracting Strategy for Superfund
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendations E,2)" (August 1990),
PB90-273822/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9285.1-03, "Standard Operating Safety Guides" (June 1992), PB92-963414.
OSWER Publication 9285.7-0IB, "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human
Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim Final" (December 1989), EPA/540/1-89/002,
PB90-155581.
OSWER Publication 9285.8-02 "Health and Safety Audit Guidelines: SARA Title I, Section 126"
(December 1989), EPA/540/G-89/010, PB90-204157.
OSWER Publications 9355.0-46FS and 9355.0-46, "Technology Selection Guide for Wood
Treater Sites" (May 1993), PB93-963505, also previously cited as OSWER Publications
9360.0-46FS and 9360.0-46.
OSWER Publication 9355.3-01, "Guidance For Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) Under CERCLA" (October 1988), EPA/540/G-89/004,
PB89-184626.
OSWER Publication 9355.3-20, "Revisions to OMB Circular A-94 on Guidelines and Discount
Rates for Benefit Cost Analysis" (June 25, 1993), PB93-963297.
OSWER Publication 9360.0-02C, "Removal Cost Management System: Version 3.2"
(May 1990), EPA/540/P-90/003, PB90-272691.
OSWER Publication 9360.0-12A, "Final Guidance on Implementation of the 'Consistency'
Exemption to the Statutory Limits on Removal Actions" (June 12, 1989), PB90-274465/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9360.0-12FS, "Exemptions from the Statutory Limits on Removal Actions"
(November 1990), PB91-921304/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9360.0-13, "Guidance on Implementation of the 'Contribute to Remedial
Performance' Provision" (April 6, 1987).
48
-------
References (Continued)
OSWER Publication 9360.0-15, "The Role of Expedited Response Actions Under SARA"
(April 21, 1987), PB91-214221/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9360.0-18, "Removal Program Priorities" (March 31, 1988),
PB91-205484/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9360.2-02, "Policy on Management of Post-Removal Site Control"
(Decembers, 1990), PB91-921326/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9360.2-04, "Authorization for Regional Administrators to Approve
Consistency Exemption at NPL Sites" (February 24, 1992), PB92-963343.
OSWER Publication 9360.3-01, "Superfund Removal Procedures—Action Memorandum
Guidance" (December 1990), EPA/540/P-90/004, PB90-274473.
OSWER Publication 9360.3-02, "Superfund Removal Procedures—Guidance on the
Consideration of ARARs During Removal Actions" (August 1991), PB92-963401/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9360.3-05, "Superfund Removal Procedures—Public Participation Guidance
for On-Scene Coordinators: Community Relations and the Administrative Record"
(June 1992), PB92-963416.
OSWER Publication 9360.3-06, "Superfund Removal Procedures—Removal Enforcement
Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators" (April 1992), PB92-963409.
OSWER Publication 9360.4-01, "Quality Assurance/Quality Control Guidance for Removal
Activities—Sampling QA/QC Plan and Data Validation Procedures (Interim Final)"
(April 1990), EPA/540/G-90/004, PB90-274481.
OSWER Publication 9360.4-02, "Compendium of ERT Soil Sampling and Surface Geophysics
Procedures" (January 1991), EPA/540/P-91/006, PB91-921273.
OSWER Publication 9360.4-03, "Compendium of ERT Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
Procedures" (January 1991), EPA/540/P-91/005, PB91-921274.
OSWER Publication 9360.4-05, "Compendium of ERT Air Sampling Procedures" (May 1992),
PB92-963406.
OSWER Publication 9360.4-06, "Compendium of ERT Ground Water Sampling Procedures"
(January 1991), EPA/540/P-91/007, PB91-921273.
OSWER Publication 9360.4-07, "Compendium of ERT Waste Sampling Procedures"
(January 1991), EPA/540/P-91/008, PB91-921276.
OSWER Publication 9360.4-08, "Compendium of ERT Toxicity Testing Procedures"
(January 1991), EPA/540/P-91/009, PB91-921271.
OSWER Publication 9360.4-10, "Removal Program—Representative Soil Sampling Guidance"
(November 1991), PB92-963408.
49
-------
References (Continued)
OSWER Publication 9360.6-08, "Technical Assistance Team (TAT) Contracts Users' Manual"
(October 1991), PB92-963407.
OSWER Publication 9380.0-17, "Furthering the Use of Innovative Treatment Technologies in
OSWER Programs" (August 1991), EPA/540/2-90/004, PB91-921366
OSWER Publication 9380.3-03, "Inventory of Treatability Study Vendors" (March 1990),
EPA/540/2-90/003a, PB91-228395.
OSWER Publication 9832.0-1A, "Procedures for Documenting Costs for CERCLA Section 107
Actions" (January 30,1985), PB91-138958/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9832.1, "Cost Recovery Actions Under CERCLA" (August 26,1983),
PB91-138966/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9832.11, "Guidance on Documenting Decisions Not to Task Cost Recovery
Actions" (June 7, 1988) PB91-139048/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9832.13, "Superfund Cost Recovery Strategy" (July 29, 1988),
PB91-139063/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9833.0-1A, "Guidance on CERCLA Section 106(a) Unilateral Administrative
Orders for Remedial Designs and Remedial Actions" (March 13, 1990), PB91-139089/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9833.3A-1, "Final Guidance on Administrative Records for Selection of
CERCLA Response Actions" (December 3, 1990), PB91-139121/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9834.10, "Interim Guidance on Notice Letters, Negotiations, and Information
Exchange" (October 19, 1987), PB91-139253/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9834.10-lb, "Model Notice Letters" (February 7, 1989), PB91-
139279/CCE. \
OSWER Publication 9834.11, "Revised Procedures for Implementing Off-Site Response Actions"
(November 13,1987), PB91-139287/CCE. (A final rule addressing this issue is expected in
1993.)
OSWER Publication 9834.1 la, "Off-Site Policy RFA or Equivalent investigation Requirement at
RCRA Treatment and Storage Facilities" (January 4,1988), PB91-139295/CCE. (A final rule
addressing this issue is expected in 1993.)
OSWER Publication 9836.0-1 A, "Community Relations During Enforcement Activities and
Development of the Administrative Record" (November 3,1988), PB91-139519/CCE.
OSWER Publication 9837.2B, "Enforcement Project Management Handbook: FY1993 Update"
(May 1993), PB93-963602.
50
-------
References (Continued)
Statutes and Regulations
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§9601-9675
(1992)
Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions, 55 FR
23007 (June 5, 1990) (codified at 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O)
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Regulations, 51 FR 45663 (December 19,
1986), 52 FR 16241 (May 4, 1987), 53 FR 12121 (April 12, 1988), 54 FR 9317 (March 6,
1989), 55 FR 25094 (June 20, 1990), 55 FR 32015 (August 6, 1990), 55 FR 46054
(November 1, 1990), 57 FR 6403 (February 24,1992), (codified at 29 CFR §1910.120)
Worker Protection, 54 FR 26654 (June 23, 1989), 57 FR 28087, 28088 (June 24, 1992) (codified
at 40 CFR Part 311)
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 55 FR 8666 (March 8, 1990)
(codified at 40 CFR §§300.1-300.920)
51
-------
Appendix B
Key Words Index
Action Memorandum 4-5, 8, 14-15, 20, 31, 38, 42-43, 46
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) 11
Administrative record 6, 13-15, 20,24, 26,46
Approval Memorandum 5-6, 15-17, 19, 21-23
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) 29, 31 -32, 34-38
Confidential information 26-27
Contracts management 9-10
Cooperative Agreement 8
Cost recovery 11
Environmental Response Team (ERT) 28, 32
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 8
Notice letter 10
OSC reports 17-18
Public involvement 5-6, 12-15, 43
Post-removal site control (PRSC) 5, 8, 39, 42-44
Potentially responsible parties (PRPs) 8, 10-11, 22, 26-27, 39
Preliminary assessment (PA) 4, 22
Present worth analysis 43-44
Previous removal actions 26-27
Regional Decision Teams (RDT) 3, 7-8, 11
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 2, 19-20
Removal action objectives 4, 20, 31
Removal schedule 32-33
52
-------
Key Words Index (Continued)
Removal scope 32
Removal site evaluation (RSE) ....4
Site characterization 24-30
Site closeout 5, 11
Site description 25-26
Site inspection (SI) 4, 24
Statutory limits 6, 8, 11, 19-20, 31, 33, 41
Streamlined risk evaluation 29-30
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) 2-3, 7-8, 10-11, 28
Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) 11
53
-------
Appendix C
Comparison of EE/CA to RI/FS
EE/CA Process
RI/FS Process*
1. EE/CA Approval Memorandum
• Secure management approval and funding for
EE/CA
• Include finding of actual or threatened release
and, if present, an imminent and substantial
endangerment and general site information
and costs
• Document that situation meets NCP criteria
and action is non-time-critical
la. Pre-Rl/FS Scoping
• Collect existing data
• Visit site/identify areas of concern
• Generate statement of work
Ib. RI/FS Scoping
• Collect/analyze existing data
• Determine need for/implement additional
studies
• Develop preliminary remedial action
alternatives/objectives
• Evaluate need for treatability studies
• Begin preliminary identification of ARARs
• Identify data needs/data quality objectives
• Design data collection program
• Develop work plan
• Identify health and safety protocols
EE/CA
2. EE/CA Executive Summary
• Identifies threat
• Describes removal action objectives
• Summarizes recommended action
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3. Site Characterization
• Collect site description and background
• Identify previous removal actions
• Determine source, nature, and extent of
contamination
• Collect analytical data
• Perform streamlined risk evaluation
• Identify contaminant- and location-specific
ARARs
Identification of Removal Action Objectives
« Evaluate statutory limits
• Determine scope of removal action
• Determine schedule of removal action
2. Site Characterization
• Investigate site physical characteristics
• Define sources of contamination
• Determine nature and extent of contamination
• Conduct laboratory analyses
• Conduct data analyses
• Conduct baseline risk assessment
• Identify contaminant- and location-specific
ARARs
• Define remedial action goals
Draft RI Report
OSWER Publication 9355.3-01, "Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) Under CERCLA" (October 1988), EPA/540/G-89/004, PB89-
184626
54
-------
Appendix C
Comparison of EE/CA to RI/FS (Continued)
EE/CA Process
RI/FS Process*
FEASIBILITY STUDY
5. Identification and Analysis of Removal Action
Alternatives
3a.
Identify treatment technologies (presumptive
remedy and treatability studies, as appropriate)
Evaluate effectiveness
Overall protection of human health and
the environment
- Compliance with ARARs
Long-term effectiveness and permanence 3b.
- Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment
- Short-term effectiveness
Evaluate implementability
- Technical feasibility 3c.
Administrative feasibility
- Availability of services and materials
State acceptance
Community acceptance
Evaluate cost
4.
Development of Alternatives
• Remedial action objectives
• General response actions
• Volumes or areas of media
• Screen technology and process options
• Process options identification
• Technology alternatives
• Action-specific ARARs
Screening of Alternatives
• Effectiveness
• Implementability
• Cost
• Innovative technologies
Performance of Treatability Studies
• Data requirements
• Bench- or pilot-scale study
• Treatability test work plan
• Documentation of results
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
• Overall protection of human health and
environment
• Compliance w/ARARs
• Long-term effectiveness and performance
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
through treatment
• Short-term effectiveness
• Implementability
• Cost
• State acceptance
• Community acceptance
(analyze alternatives against these nine criteria)
Comparative Analysis of Removal Action
Alternatives
(See criteria above)
Compare alternatives
5. Comparative Analysis
(See criteria above)
Compare alternatives
Recommended Removal Action Alternative
(summarized in Action Memorandum)
[Public comment period on EE/CA of at least
30 daysl
6. Preferred Remedial Alternative (summarized in
Proposed Plan)
[Public comment period of at least 30 days]
OSWER Publication 9355.3-01, "Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) Under CERCLA" (October 1988), EPA/540/G-89/004, PB89-
184626
55
-------
Appendix D
Model Notice of Decision
Not To Use Special Notice Procedures"
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region []
[ADDRESS]
NOTICE OF DECISION NOT TO USE SPECIAL NOTICE PROCEDURES
URGENT LEGAL MATTER**
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
[Date]
[Name and Address of Potentially Responsible Party]
[c/o Registered Agent or Contact Person]
Re: [Name of Site]
[Address or location of Site] (the "Site")
Dear [Name of PRP if an individual; "sir or madam" otherwise}:
This letter notifies you that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
determined not to use special notice procedures pursuant to Section 122(e) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), at the above-
referenced site regarding the [RI/FS] [RI/FS for operable unit] [RD/RA] [RD/RA for operable
unit].
NOTICE OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY
As indicated in the general notice letter previously sent to you, EPA has evaluated information in
connection with the investigation of the site. EPA has information indicating that you may be a
potentially responsible party (PRP) as defined at Section 107(a) of the CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9607(a), with respect to hazardous substances at this site. Potentially responsible parties under
CERCLA include current and former owners and operators of the site as well as persons who
arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances sent to the site, or persons who
accepted hazardous substances for transport to the site.
DECISION NOT TO USE SPECIAL NOTICE
In this instance EPA has decided that it is inappropriate to invoke the Section 122(e) special notice
procedures. EPA believes that using such special notice procedures would not facilitate an
agreement between EPA and the PRPs and would not expedite the response action at the site.
(Provide specific reasons why the special notice procedures would not facilitate an agreement and
Model letter from OSWER Publication 9834.10-lb, "Model Notice Letters" (Feb. 7, 1989), PB91-139279/CCE.
This letter may need to be modified if a general notice letter has not been sent to include some of the information
typically conveyed in that letter.
56
-------
Notice Of Decision Not To Use Special Notice Procedures (Continued)
would not expedite a response. Examples may include where past dealings with the PRPs strongly
indicate they are unlikely to negotiate a settlement, where EPA believes the PRPs have not been
negotiating informally to this point in good faith, or where PRPs lack the resources to conduct
response activities.)
The decision not to use the special notice procedure does not preclude you from entering into
discussions with EPA regarding your participation in response activities at the site. The decision
simply means that EPA will not use the special notice procedures to govern any future discussions.
EPA encourages ah1 PRP offers regarding settlement of this matter and cleanup of this site.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Pursuant to CERCLA Section 113(k), EPA must establish an administrative record that contains
documents that form the basis of EPA's decision on the selection of a response action for a site.
The administrative record files, which contain the documents related to the response action selected
for this site, [will be] [are] available to the public for inspection and comment. The primary
location is generally the EPA Regional office. [Include specific information regarding the location
and availability of the record file.]
EPA CONTACT
If you or your attorney have any questions pertaining to this matter, please direct them to
Sincerely,
Attachments
57
------- |