United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive: 9335.3-02FS-2
November 1989
&EPA
A Guide to Developing
Superfund Proposed Plans
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, requires preparation of Proposed Plans as part of the site remediation
process. The Proposed Plan is prepared after the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) is completed and is made available with the
RI/FS to the public for comment. The Proposed Plan highlights key aspects of the RI/FS, provides a brief analysis of remedial alternatives
under consideration, identifies the preferred alternative, and provides members of the public with information on how they can participate in
the remedy selection process. A notice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan is published in a major local newspaper of general circulation. In
addition, the Proposed Plan, the RI/FS, and the other contents of the Administrative Record are available at an information repository near
the site.
This guide outlines the major components of the Proposed Plan and suggests effective ways in which the various sections can be presented.
EPA recommends issuing the Proposed Plan in a fact sheet format. For some highly complex sites or remedies, more detailed Plans may be
appropriate. All Proposed Plans should be written in a style that makes the material easy for the public to understand and should emphasize
that the preferred alternative identified in the Proposed Plan is a preliminary determination, and that the Agency is requesting comments on all
of the alternatives.
Detailed guidance on the preparation of the Proposed Plan is provided in Chapters 2, 3, 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).
Introduction
Begin with a statement of the document's purpose. This
introduction should state the site name and location, identify the
lead and support agencies, and state that the Proposed Plan:
a Fulfills the requirements of CERCLA section 117(a);
n Describes the remedial alternatives analyzed for the site or
operable unit;
D Identifies the preferred alternative and explains the rationale
for the preference;
n Highlights key information in the RI/FS and administrative
record, to which the reader is referred for further details;
n Solicits community involvement in the selection of a remedy;
and
n Invites public comment on all alternatives.
Site Background
Provide a brief description of the site, including:
n History of site activities that led to current problems at the site;
and
n The site area or media to be addressed by the selected remedy.
Figure 1 is an example of a site map that could be included.
Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response
Action
n Identify the principal threats posed by conditions at the site;
and
D Describe the scope of the problems addressed by the preferred
alternative and its role within the overall site clean-up
strategy.
Summary of Site Risks
n Provide a brief overview of the baseline risk assessment,
including the contaminated media, contaminants of concern,
exposure pathways and populations, and potential or actual
risks;
n Describe how current risks compare with remediation goals;
and
a Discuss environmental riv/s, as appropriate.
Summary of Alternatives
Describe briefly each of the alternatives evaluated in the detailed
analysis of the FS. Highlight the following:
a Treatment components;
n Engineering controls (noting the type of containment
controls); and
a Institutional controls.
Quantities of waste and implementation requirements related to
each component should be noted, as well as major applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), the estimated
construction, and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs (also
expressed in present worth), and the implementation time of each
alternative. Emphasize that these latter two evaluations are
estimates. An example is presented ir. Highlight 1.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Figure 1
EIO Industrial Slle and Surroundings'
D
C/Z) TCE-Contamln»Ud Soil SIU Boundary
ES ll«liili-Conlanlm»eJ Sou ^ Municipal Well N
D
Highlight 1: Summarizing an Alternative
Treatment Components:
Excavation, on—site incineration of contaminated soils, and
solidification and off-site disposal of residual metals and ash.
Estimated Construction Cost: $42,463,300
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $26,200
Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $42,708,780
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 30 Months
Under this alternative, a mobile incinerator would be brought
to the site, and 28,000 cubic yards of soils contaminated with
RCRA listed wastes would be excavated and incinerated on-
site to BDAT levels established under the RCRA Land Dis-
posal Restrictions (LDR). Waste gases and water from this
process would be collected and treated off-site in a RCRA
Subtitle C treatment facility; residual metals and ash would be
solidified to achieve LDR treatment standards and disposed
off-site in a RCRA Subtitle C disposal facility.
Evaluation of Alternatives and the Preferred
Alternative.
D Identify the preferred alternative, emphasizing that the
selection of this alternative is preliminary and could change
in response to public comments or other new information.
Sample text is presented in Highlight 2.
Highlight 2: Stating the Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative is alternative number 3. Alterna-
tive 3 includes excavation and on-site incineration of con-
taminated soils, with solidification and off-site disposal of
residual metals and ash. Based on new information or pub-
lic comments, EPA. in consultation with the State of Ten-
nessee, may later modify the preferred alternative or select
another remedial action presented in this Proposed Plan
and the RI/FS. The public, therefore, is encouraged to re-
view and comment on all of the alternatives identified in
this Proposed Plan. The RI/FS should be consulted for
more information on these alternatives.
Introduce the nine evaluation criteria used to evaluate the
alternatives.
Summarize the expected performance of the preferred
alternative in terms of the nine evaluation criteria
explaining how the preferred alternative compares to the
other alternatives with respect to those criteria. This
description is for the preliminary preference. Sample text
for one criterion is presented in Highlight 3.
Highlight 3: Presenting the Evaluation of
Alternatives
Short-term effectiveness.
Alternative number 4 uses a treatment process for soils and
disposal of residuals in an on-site landfill that contains the
contaminated soils and reduces the possibility of direct hu-
man contact with contaminants more quickly than all of the
other alternatives except Alternative 1 (no action). Under
the preferred alternative, once the volatile organics have
been collected in canisters, there is some minor short-term
risk of exposure to the community during transportation of
the canisters to a disposal site.
Because the capacity of on-site and off-site incinerators is
limited, under Alternatives 3 and 5 contaminated soils
would be stockpiled for up to six years. Under these two
alternatives, the risks of direct contact with stockpiled con-
taminated soils would be increased until incineration has
been completed. In addition, there are some risks of expo-
sure to air emissions from the incinerators.
The nine evaluation criteria are summarized below.
Threshold Criteria:
- Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether a remedy provides adequate protection
of human health and the environment and describes how
risks posed through each exposure pathway are elimi-
nated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engi-
neering controls, or institutional controls.
Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) addresses whether a remedy will
meet all of the ARARs of other Federal and State envi-
ronmental laws and/or justifies a waiver.
Primary Balancing Criteria:
- Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to ex-
pected 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.
- Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treat-
ment is the anticipated performance of the treatment
technologies a remedy may employ.
- 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
- 2 -
-------
- Implementability is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed to implement a particular
option.
- Cost includes estimated capital and O&M costs, also
expressed as net present worth-costs.
Modifying Criteria:
- State/Support Agency Acceptance reflects aspects of the
preferred alternative and other alternatives that the
support agency favors or objects to, and any specific
comments regarding State ARARs or the proposed use of
waivers. The Proposed Plan should address views known at
the time the plan is issued but should not speculate. The
assessment of State concerns may not be complete until
after the public comment period on the RI/FS and
Proposed Plan is held.
- Community Acceptance summarizes the public's general
response to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan
and in the RI/FS, based on public comments received. Like
State Acceptance, evaluations under this criterion usually
will not be completed until after the public comment period
is held.
Present the lead agency's preliminary determination that the
preferred alternative provides the best balance of tradeoffs with
respect to the nine criteria. Sample text is presented in Highlight
4. The preferred alternative is anticipated to meet the following
statutory requirements to:
n Protect human health and the environment;
a Comply with ARARs (or justify a waiver);
n Be cost-effective;
a Utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment or
resource recovery technologies, to the maximum extent
practicable; and
Satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element, or justify not meeting the preference.
Highlight 4: Summarizing the Statutory
Findings
In summary, the preferred alternative is believed to pro-
vide the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives
with respect to the criteria used to evaluate remedies.
Based on the information available at this time, therefore,
EPA and the State of Tennessee believe the preferred al-
ternative would protect human health and the environ-
ment, would comply with ARARs, would be cost-
effective, and would utilize permanent solutions and alter-
native treatment technologies or resource recovery tech-
nologies to the maximum extent practicable. The pre-
ferred alternative should/will not satisfy the preference for
treatment as a principal element.
Community Participation
The Proposed Plan is a public participation decision document. It
should include information that helps the public understand how
they can be involved. To this end, the Plan should:
a Provide notice of the dates of the public comment period;
a Note the date, time, and location of public meeting(s)
planned to be held;
a Identify names, phone numbers, and addresses of lead and
support agency contact people to whom comments should
be sent;
a State whether a special notice has been issued to the
potentially responsible parties (PRPs), if applicable; and
o List the location of the Administrative Record and other
information repositories.
- 3 -
------- |