United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive: 9335.3-02FS-1
November 1989
&EPA
A Guide to Developing
Superfund Records of Decision
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
EPA issues the Record of Decision (ROD) as the final remedial action plan for a site or operable unit. The ROD summarizes the problems
posed by the conditions at a site, the alternative remedies considered for addressing those problems, and the comparative analysis of those
alternatives against nine evaluation criteria. The ROD then presents the selected remedy and provides the rationale for that selection,
specifically explaining how the remedy satisfies the requirements of section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.
This guide provides ROD preparers with a quick reference to the essential ROD components. The information to be included in each of the
three major sections of a ROD is summarized below. Close attention should be given to the sections in which alternatives are described, risk
information is presented, the comparative analysis against the nine evaluation criteria is summarized, and the declaration of statutory
determinations is made. Additional information on ROD preparation is provided in Chapters 6,7, and 9 of the "Interim Final Guidance on
Preparing Superfund Decision Documents" (the "ROD Guidance") (OSWER Directive 9335.3-02, November, 1989, EPA/540/G-89/007).
THE DECLARATION
The Declaration is a formal statement signed by the EPA Regional Administrator (RA) or Assistant Administrator (AA) of the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) that identifies the selected remedy and indicates that the selection was carried out in accordance
with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the Superfund program. The State Director may also sign the Declaration, if appropriate.
The Declaration should be approximately two pages long and should include the information provided in Highlight 1.
Highlight 1: Outline and Sample Language for the Declaration of the Record of Decision
Site Name and Location
Statement of Basis and Purpose
"This decision document presents the selected remedial ac-
tion for the [site], in [location], which was chosen in accor-
dance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and, to the ex-
tent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based
on the administrative record for this site."
"The State/Commonwealth of concurs with the se-
lected remedy."
Assessment of the Site
"Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances
from this site, if not addressed by implementing the response
action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may pre-
sent an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment."
Description of the Selected Remedy
Q Describe the role of this operable unit within the overall site
strategy. (Does this operable unit address the principal
threats posed by the site?)
a Describe the major components of the selected remedy in
bullet fashion.
Statutory Determinations
n When the selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference
for treatment as a principal element by addressing the prin-
cipal threat(s) at the site with treatment, the Declaration
should state:
"The selected remedy is protective of human health and
the environment, complies with Federal and State re-
quirements that are legally applicable or relevant and ap-
gropriate to the remedial action [or "a waiver can be justi-
ed for whatever Federal and State applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirement that will not be met"], and is
cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions
and alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technol-
ogy, to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment
that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal
element."
(or)
When a remedy involving little or no treatment is selected (i.e.,
treatment is not utilized to address the principal threat(s)),
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires a statement and ra-
tionale explaining why a remedial action involving such reduc-
tions was not selected. The Declaration should state:
"The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements
that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action [or "a waiver can be justified for whatever
Federal and State applicable or relevant and appropriate re-
quirement that will not be met"], and is cost-effective. This
remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treat-
ment (or resource recovery) technologies, to the maximum
extent practicable for this site. However, because treatment
of the principal threats of the site was not found to be practi-
cable [or "within the limited scope of this action"], this rem-
edy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as
a principal element."
If the remedy will leave hazardous substances on-site above
health-based levels, the Declaration should include the follow-
ing:
"Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances re-
maining on-site above health-based levels, a review will be
conducted within five years after commencement of reme-
dial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environ-
ment."
(or)
If the remedy will not leave hazardous substances on-site
above health-based levels, the Declaration should include the
following:
"Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site above health-based levels, the five-year
review will not apply to this action."
(Signature of Assistant/Regional Administrator)
(Signature of State Director (if appropriate))
Date
(Note: Attach the State's letter of concurrence to the Record of
Decision package)
rriniea on HocyciBO Paper
-------
THE DECISION SUMMARY
The Decision Summary provides an overview of the problems
posed by the conditions at a site, the remedial alternatives, and the
analysis of those options. The Decision Summary explains the
rationale for the selection and how the selected remedy satisfies
statutory requirements. The information to be presented in each
of the sections of the Decision Summary is outlined below. In
most cases, much of the information presented can be
summarized from the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS).
Site Name, Location, and Description. Briefly describe the
site in terms of:
a Name, location, address (include maps, a site plan, or
other graphic descriptions, as appropriate);
o Area and topography of the site, especially if it is located
within a floodplain or wetlands;
n Adjacent land uses;
Q Natural resource uses;
a Location and distance to nearby human populations;
o General surface-water and ground-water resources; and
D Surface and subsurface features (e.g., number and volume
of tanks, lagoons, drums, or other structures).
Site History and Enforcement Activities. Summarize the
following:
D History of site activities that led to current problems;
o History of Federal and State site investigations and
removal and remedial actions conducted under CERCLA
or other authorities; and
D History of CERCLA enforcement activities at the site,
including:
- The results of searches for potentially responsible
parties (PRPs); and
- Whether special notices have been issued to PRPs.
Highlights of Community Participation. Summarize the
major public participation activities, as follows:
D Describe how the public participation requirements of
CERCLA sections 113(kX2)(BXi-v) and 117 were met in
the remedy selection process.
Note: Community response to the selected remedy should be
addressed under the "community acceptance" criterion in the
Comparative Analysis section of the ROD. Responses to
community concerns should be addressed in the "Responsiveness
Summary1' of the ROD.
Scope and Role of Operable Unit [or Response Action]
Within Site Strategy.
n Describe the role of the remedial action within the overall
site clean-up strategy.
o Summarize the scope of the problems addressed by the
remedial action selected. Will the action address any of
the principal threats posed by conditions at the site?
Note: The Statutory Determinations section of the ROD should
explain whether or not the selected remedy satisfies the statutory
preference for remedies employing treatment that reduces
toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element. By indicating
whether the principal threat(s) will be addressed by the action, the
Scope and Role section of the Decision Summary should provide
the basis for that statutory determination.
Summary of Site Characteristics. Highlight the following
factors:
D All known or suspected sources of contamination;
D Contamination and affected media, including:
- Types and characteristics (e.g., toxic, mobile,
carcinogenic, non-carcinogenic) of contaminants;
- Volume of contaminated material; and
- Concentrations of contaminants;
n Location of contamination and known or potential routes of
migration, including:
- Population and environmental areas that could be
affected, if exposed;
- Lateral and vertical extent of contamination; and
- Potential surface and subsurface pathways of
migration.
Include maps, charts, tables, and other graphic descriptions, as
appropriate.
Summary of Site Risks. Summarize the results of the baseline
risk assessment conducted for the site.
Human Health Risks:
D Identify the concentrations of the contaminants (indicator
chemicals) of concern in each medium of exposure;
D Summarize results of the exposure assessment;
o Summarize the toxicity assessment of contaminants of
concern;
D Summarize risk characterization for each pathway and the
total risk for the site, including:
- Potential or actual carcinogenic risks;
- Noncarcinogenic risks; and
- Brief explanation of the meaning of key risk terms.
Environmental Risks:
n Summarize the affects of the contamination on critical
habitats; and
a Summarize the affects of the contamination on any
endangered species.
Note: This summary of the baseline risk assessment provides the
rationale for the lead agency's either undertaking a response
action or taking no action.
Description of Alternatives. The objective of this section is to
provide an understanding of the remedial alternatives developed
for the site and their specific components. Each alternative
should be described in terms of the components listed below.
Figure 1 is an example of elements to be addressed in this section.
D Treatment components. Describe the following, as
appropriate:
- Treatment technologies (e.g., thermal destruction)
that will be used;
- Type and volume of waste to be treated;
- Process sizing; and
Primary treatment levels (e.g., best demonstrated
available technology [BOAT], percentage or order of
magnitude of concentration reductions expected).
n Containment or storage components. Describe the
following, as appropriate:
Type of storage (e.g., landfill, tank, surface
impoundment, containers);
- Type of closure that will be implemented (RCRA
Subtitle C clean closure, landfill closure, Subtitle D
solid waste closure);
Type and quantity of waste to be stored; and
- Quantity of untreated waste and treatment residuals
to be disposed off-site or managed on-site in a
- 2 -
-------
containment system (cap., minimum technology unit,
etc.) and the degree of hazard remaining in such waste.
Q Ground-water component. Describe the following, as
appropriate:
- Ground-water classification (e.g., Class I, II, or III);
- Remediation levels (e.g., Maximum Contaminant
Levels [MCLs] );
- Estimated restoration timeframe; and
- Area of attainment
n General components. Describe the following, as
appropriate, for each of the three previous components:
- Contaminated media addressed (and physical location
at the site);
- Initial risk;
- Risk reduction;
- Whether treatability testing has been or will be
conducted;
- Implementation requirements;
- Institutional controls;
- Residual levels (e.g., delisting, BOAT);
- Assumptions, limitations, uncertainties;
- Estimated implementation timeframe; and
- Estimated capital, O&M, and present-worth costs.
n The major applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs), risk-based levels, and other "to
be considered" (TBCs) being met/utilized for the specific
components of the waste management process.
- The description should summarize how the specific
components of the alternative will comply with the
major ARARs, as well as briefly describe why the
standard is applicable or relevant and appropriate
(e.g., placing a RCRA characteristic waste, thus
RCRA closure is applicable).
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives. In this
section, summarize the relative performance of the alternatives by
highlighting the key differences among the alternatives in relation
to the nine evaluation criteria. An effective way of organizing this
section is to present a series of paragraphs headed by each.
criterion. Under each criterion, the alternative that performs best
in that category should be discussed first, with other options
discussed in sequence. Refer to the RI/FS and ROD guidance
documents for additional information on the factors included in
each of the nine criteria. The nine evaluation criteria are
summarized below.
Threshold Criteria
n Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether a remedy provides adequate protection
and describes how risks posed through each pathway are
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
a Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) addresses whether a remedy will meet
all of the ARARs of other Federal and State environmental
laws and/or justifies a waiver.
Primary Balancing Criteria
n Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to expected
residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time,
once clean-up goals have been met.
a Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
is the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies a
remedy may employ.
n Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human
health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period, until clean-up goals
are achieved.
a Implementability is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services needed to implement a particular option.
n Cost includes estimated capital and O&M costs, as well as
present-worth costs.
Figure 1
Components of Alternatives t
28,000 YD3
SOIL
* SOIL
EXCAVATION
I DRY
SCRUBBER
f
ON-SITE
" INCINERATION
Heavy metals Clean closure Meets LDR BD
Cd:28ppm. , Backf|||/regrade standards
Cr+6:12Ppm . Revegetate
Pb:41ppm
VOCs
TCE: 127 ppm
Benzene: 52 ppm
10~2 carcinogenic risk level AIR
Waste restricted under LDRs EMISSIONS
t
Tim
iH
CONTAMINATED
GROUND WATER
TCE: 202 ppm
Benzene: 1 03 ppm
10~Z Carcinogenic
risk level
e Until Cleanup Goals Met
mx&im^xi^xtmi&M
GROUND-WATER
EXTRACTION
AIR STRIP
GAG
o be Described AIR
99.99% Destruction Removal Efficiency
Residual Ash ON~SI,T^5I
Heavy Metals ' SUBTITLED
Hj 28,000 YC
TREATEC
. TREAT IN
Spent GAC ACCORDANCE
* WITH
LDR BOAT
OFF-SITE RCRA
^ SUBTITLE C
DISPOSAL
SPOSAL Ground-water
IA monitoring
LANDFILL Cap/liner
Integrity
5 FROM Deed restrictions
33 OF Exposure level at
SOIL 10~s
concentration
levels
$14,666,000
Capital
$43,700 Annual
O&M
$14.400,000
Present worth
OFF-SITE RCRA
DISPOSAL
1.75 Million _ 98.2%
Gallons per trriuem ^ Hemoval Efficiency
rate
DISCHARGE
TO
XYZ RIVER
Soil
sa&^MMsamMMS^^^^^^msssmmMM^
Z 28 Months
NPDES permit
10 ~6 carcinogenic
risk level
$12,527,000 Capital
$525,000 Annual O&M
$15,300,000
Present worth
gg8^TOp8SpE8^^g%ff^iisffiPS8a88miagSS
Ground water
i ESSfc^
JMS88MjM86i8ia»Mmij||g|fc».
2 8Yrs ^^
- 3 -
-------
Modifying Criteria
^ State/Support Agency Acceptance should be used to indicate
the support agency's comments. Where the State or Federal
agency is the lead for the ROD, EPA's acceptance of the
selected remedy should be addressed under this criterion.
" Community Acceptance summarizes the public's general
response to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan
and RI/FS Report. The specific responses to public
comments should be addressed in the Responsiveness
Summary section of the ROD.
Notes: In addressing the long-term effectiveness and
permanence of an alternative, the term "permanence" should be
used carefullv. Permanence is viewed along a continuum; an
alternative can be described as offering a greater or lesser degree
of long-term effectiveness and permanence. Alternatives
generally should not be described as "permanent" or
"impermanent."
Only reductions achieved through treatment should be addressed
under the "reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through
treatment" criterion. Reductions of mobility accomplished
through containment should be addressed under "overall
protection of human health and the environment."
The Selected Remedy. In this section of the ROD, identify the
selected remedy and remediation goals and state:
D The carcinogenic risk level to be attained and the
rationale for it; and
a The specific points of compliance, as appropriate, for the
media being addressed (e.g., "MCLs will be met at the
edge of the waste management area").
The Statutory Determinations. The remedy selected must
satisfy the requirements of section 121 of CERCLA to:
o Protect human health and the environment;
n Comply with ARARs (or justify a waiver);
D Be cost-effective;
a Utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable; and
n Satisfy the preference for treatment as a principal element
or justify not meeting the preference.
A description of how the selected remedy satisfies each of the
statutory requirements should be provided. Points to address for
each of these requirements are presented in Highlight 2.
Documentation of Significant Changes. CERCLA section
117(b) requires an explanation of any significant changes from the
preferred alternative originally presented in the Proposed Plan. If
the selected remedy reflects significant changes from the
preferred alternative, the ROD should:
D Identify the preferred alternative originally presented in
the Proposed Plan;
a Describe the significant changes; and
n Explain the reason(s) for such changes.
THE RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The final component of the ROD is the Responsiveness
Summary, which serves two purposes. First, it provides lead
agency decisionmakers with information about community
preferences regarding both the remedial alternatives and general
concerns about the site. Second, it demonstrates to members of
the public how their comments were taken into account as an
integral part of the decision making process.
Guidance on preparing Responsiveness Summaries is available in
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (OSWER
Directive 9230.0-3B, June 1988). That document details the
process of preparing the Responsiveness Summary and includes a
sample Responsiveness Summary.
Highlight 2: The Statutory Determinations
Protection Of Human Health And The Environment
D Describe how the selected remedy will eliminate, reduce,
or control risks posed through each pathway through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls,
to ensure adequate protection of human health and the
environment (including that the site risk will be reduced
to within the 10-4 to 10-6 range for carcinogens, and that
the Hazard Indices for non-carcinogens will be less than
one).
n Indicate that no unacceptable short-term risks or cross-
media impacts will be caused by implementation of the
remedy.
Compliance with ARARs
D State whether the selected remedy will comply with
ARARs. When appropriate, state the waiver that is being
invoked and justify the waiver. Organize the ARARs ac-
cording to chemical-specific, location-specific, and ac-
tion-specific.
a List and describe the Federal and State ARARs that the
selected remedy will attain, distinguishing applicable
from relevant and appropriate requirements, as neces-
sary. Note: Cite the specific section of the statute or regu-
lation that contains the requirement and provide a brief
synopsis of the requirement.
! List and provide the rationale for using any "to be consid-
ered" (TBCs). Note: TBCs are not ARARs, but they may
be used to design a remedy or set clean-up levels if no
ARARs address the site, or if existing ARARs do not en-
sure protectiveness.
Cost-Effectiveness
; Describe how the selected remedy provides overall effec-
tiveness proportionate to its costs, such that it represents a
reasonable value for the money to be spent.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Technologies or Resource Recovery Technolo-
gies to the Maximum Extent Practicable ("MEP")
n Describe the rationale for the remedy selection, explaining
that the remedy selected provides the best balance of trade-
offs among the alternatives with respect to the evaluation
criteria, especially the five balancing criteria.
n Discuss those criteria that were most critical in the selec-
tion decision (i.e., those that distinguish the alternatives
most).
a Highlight the tradeoffs among the alternatives with respect
to the five balancing criteria.
Q Describe the role of the State and community acceptance
considerations in the decision-making process (modifying
criteria).
n Provide a general statement that the selected remedy
meets the statutory requirement to utilize permanent solu-
tions and treatment technologies, to the maximum extent
practicable.
Note: For a remedy that does not employ any treatment or re-
source recovery technologies, the explanation of the rationale
should discuss the reasons why treatment was found to be impracti-
cable or acknowledge that treatment was not within the limited
scope of the action (e.g., an interim action).
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
a Describe how the preference for treatment is satisfied if the
remedy uses treatment to address the principal threat(s)
posed by conditions at the site; or
a Explain why the preference is not satisfied if treatment is
not used to address the principal threats. This explanation
will refer back to the explanation under the "MEP" finding
that explains why treatment of the principal threats was
found to be either impracticable or not within the limited
scope of the action.
- 4 -
------- |