EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication: 9355.3-02FS-3
April 1991
Guide to Developing Superfund
No Action, Interim Action, and
Contingency Remedy RODs
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division OS-220W
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
This guide provides quick reference to the essential components of Records of Decision (RODs) that are prepared
to document three specific types of remedial action decisions: (1) no action; (2) interim actions; and (3) contingency remedies.
In preparing one of these three types of RODs, RPMs should modify the format of the "standard ROD" for final response
actions (see Highlight 1) as indicated in this guide (i.e., sections of the standard ROD that have been crossed out should be
eliminated, and sections appearing in bold should be modified according to the directions provided). Sections of the standard
ROD that are not crossed out or do not appear in bold should be prepared as in a standard ROD. More detail on preparing
these three types of RODs is provided in Chapter 9 of the Interim Final Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents
(OSWER Directive 9355.3-02).
I. DOCUMENTING NO ACTION DECISIONS
EPA may determine that no action (i.e., no
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls1)
is warranted under the following general sets of
circumstances:
• When the site or a specific problem or area of the
site (i.e., an operable unit) poses no current or
potential threat to human health or the
environment;
• When CERCLA does not provide the authority to
take remedial action; or
• When a previous response eliminated the need for
further remedial response.
Examples of potential situations where no action
decisions may be appropriate are provided in Highlight 2.
The remainder of this section outlines ROD formats to use
for situations under which a no action ROD may be
warranted.
1 An alternative may include monitoring only and
still be considered "no action."
HIGHLIGHT 1
OUTLINE FOR THE STANDARD ROD
1. Declaration
Site Name and Location
Statement of Basis and Purpose
Assessment of the Site
Description of the Selected Remedy
Statutory Determinations
Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the
Remedy
2. Decision Summary
Site Name, Location, and Description
Site History and Enforcement Activities
Highlights of Community Participation
Scope and Role of Operable Unit
Site Characteristics
Summary of Site Risks
Description of Alternatives
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Selected Remedy
Statutory Determinations
Documentation of Significant Changes
Responsiveness Summary
Community Preferences
Integration of Comments
-------
HIGHLIGHT 2
SITUATIONS WHERE NO ACTION
DECISIONS MAY BE APPROPRIATE
• Where the baseline risk assessment concluded that
conditions at the site pose no unacceptable risks to
human health and the environment.
• Where a release involved only petroleum product that
is exempt from remedial action under CERCLA
section 101.
• Where a previous removal action eliminated existing
and potential risks to human health and the
environment such that no further action is necessary.
NO ACTION SITUATION #1:
ACTION NOT NECESSARY FOR PROTECTION
1. Declaration
• Site Name and Location
• Statement of Basis and Purpose
* Assessment of the Site
Description of the Selected Remedy: The lead
agency should state that no action is necessary for
the site or operable unit, although it may authorize
monitoring to verify that no unacceptable
exposures to potential hazards posed by conditions
at the site or operable unit occur in the future.
Statutory Determinations
2.
Declaration Statement: None of the Section 121
statutory determinations are necessary in this
section. Instead, the lead agency should state
briefly that no remedial action is necessary to
ensure protection of human health and the
environment.
Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the
Remedy
Decision Summary
Site Name, Location, and Description
Site History and Enforcement Activities
Highlights of Community Participation
Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response
Action
• Site Characteristics
• Summary of Site Risks: The information in this section
provides the primary basis for the no action decision
The discussion should support the determination that no
remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of
human health and the environment. The lead agency
should explain the basis for its conclusion that
unacceptable exposures to hazardous substances will not
occur. (In most cases, this will be based on the baseline
risk assessment conducted during the remedial
investigation (RI).) In limited cases where alternatives
were developed in the feasibility study (FS), the lead
agency should reference the RI/FS Report.
^ T^pscrintion of .Alternatives
• Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
• Selected Remedy
• Statutory Determinations
• Explanation of Significant Changes
3. Responsiveness Summary.
NO ACTION SITUATION #2:
NO CERCLA AUTHORITY TO TAKE ACTION
1. Declaration
• Site Name and Location
• Statement of Basis and Purpose
• Assessment of the Site
• Description of the Selected Remedy: The lead agency
should state that no action is necessary for the site or
operable unit, although it may authorize monitoring to
verify that no unacceptable exposures to potential
hazards posed by conditions at the site or operable unit
occur in the future.
• Statutory Determinations
• Declaration Statement: No Section 121 statutory
determinations are necessary in this section. This
section should explain that EPA does not have authority
under CERCLA Sections 104 or 106 to address the
problem(s) posed by the site or operable unit. If the
problem has been referred to other authorities, this
should be explained.
• Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the
Remedy
-------
2. Decision Summary
• Site Name, Location, and Description
Site History and Enforcement Activities
• Highlights of Community Participation
• Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response
Action
• Site Characteristics
• Summary of Site Risks
•• Description of Alternatives
» Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
* Selected Remedy
• Statutory Authority Finding: The concluding
statement of the absence of CERCLA authority to
address the problem sjiould be the same as in the
Declaration.
• Explanation of Significant Changes
3. Responsiveness Summary.
NO ACTION SITUATION #3:
NO FURTHER ACTION NECESSARY
1. Declaration
• Site Name and Location
• Statement of Basis and Purpose
* Assessment of the Site
Description of the Selected Remedy: The lead
agency should state that no action is necessary for
the site or operable unit, although it may authorize
monitoring to verify that no unacceptable
exposures to risks posed by conditions at the site
or operable unit occur in the future.
Statutory Determinations
Declaration Statement: This Declaration should
state that it has been determined that no further
remedial action is necessary at the site or operable
unit. The Declaration should explain that a
previous response(s) at the site or operable unit
eliminated the need to conduct additional remedial
action. This section also should note whether a
five-year review is required. Section 121(c) of CERCLA
requires a five-year review of any earlier post-SARA
remedy that eliminated the need to take further action
(i.e., using engineering and/or institutional controls to
prevent unacceptable exposures), yet resulted in
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remaining at the site. As a matter of policy, EPA
should generally perform a five-year review for pre-
SARA remedies and removal actions that result in
hazardous substances remaining on site, and any
remedial action that requires five or more years to attain
the cleanup levels specified in the ROD.
• Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the
Remedy
2. Decision Summary
• Site Name, Location, and Description
• Site History and Enforcement Activities
• Highlights of Community Participation
• Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action
- Site Characteristics
• Summary of Site Risks: The information in this section
provides the primary basis for the no action decision.
The discussion should support the determination that no
further remedial action is necessary to ensure protection
of human health and the environment. The lead agency
should explain the basis for its conclusion that
unacceptable exposures to hazardous substances will not
occur. (In most cases, this will be based on the baseline
risk assessment conducted during the remedial
investigation (RI).) Any previous responses that were
conducted at the site or operable unit that served to
eliminate the need for additional remedial action should
be summarized in this discussion. In limited cases where
alternatives were developed in the feasibility study (FS),
the lead agency should reference the RI/FS Report.
• Description of Alternatives
• Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
+
* Statutory Determinations
• Explanation of Significant Changes
3. Responsiveness Summary.
-------
H. DOCUMENTING INTERIM ACTION
DECISIONS
During scoping, or at other points in the RI/FS,
the lead agency may determine that an interim remedial
action is appropriate.2 An interim action is limited in
scope and only addresses areas/media that will be followed
by a final operable unit ROD. Reasons for taking an
interim action could include the need to:
• Take quick action to protect human health and the
environment from an imminent threat in the short
term, while a final remedial solution is being
developed; or
• Institute temporary measures to stabilize the site
or operable unit and/or prevent further migration
or degradation.
Interim actions either are implemented for separate
operable units or may be a component of a final ROD. In
either case, an interim action must be followed by a final
ROD, which should: (1) provide long-term protection of
human health and the environment; (2) fully address the
principal threats posed by the site or operable unit; and (3)
address the statutory preference for treatment that reduces
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of wastes. Examples of
possible interim actions are provided in Highlight 3.
Interim Actions vs. Early Actions
Interim remedial actions should not be confused
with "early remedial actions," which may be either interim
or final. For example, an early interim action might
include providing a temporary alternate water supply and
sealing wells that are pumping from a contaminated
aquifer. An early final action might involve the complete
removal of drums and a limited amount of surrounding
contaminated soil that, without early attention, could result
in contamination to currently uncontaminated areas.
Because an interim action may be taken early to
mitigate the more immediate threats, there may not be
sufficient time to prepare a "formal" RI or "formal" FS
report. Although preparation of an RI/FS report is not
required for an interim action, for the purpose of fulfilling
the NCP's Administrative Record requirements, there must
be documentation that supports the rationale for the
action. A summation of site data collected during field
investigations should be sufficient to document a problem
in need of response; in addition, a short analysis of what
remedial alternatives were considered, which ones were
rejected, and the basis for the evaluation (as is done in a
2 A removal action also may be appropriate to address short-term
risks at an NPL site. See Interim Guidance on Addressing Immediate
Tnr^^at NPL Sites, OSWER Directive 9200.2-03, January 30, 1990.
HIGHLIGHT 3
EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE
INTERIM ACTIONS
Installing extraction wells to pump a ground-water
aquifer to restrict migration of a contaminant
plume with the intention of later installing
additional wells (or taking other action) to
address the contamination in a final action.
Providing a temporary alternate source of
drinking water with the intention of later, in a
subsequent action, remediating the source of
contamination and/or the aquifer.
Constructing a temporary cap to control or
reduce exposures until a subsequent action is
taken.
Relocating contaminated material from one area
of a site (e.g., residential yards) to another area of
the site for temporary storage until a decision on
how best to manage site wastes is made. (Note:
This interim action (i.e., for temporary storage)
also could contain a final action component if the
excavated area will not require further
remediation.)
focused FS) should be summarized to support the selected
action.
INTERIM ACTION ROD FORMAT3
The Interim Action ROD should be tailored to the
limited scope and purpose of the interim action.
The format for Interim Action RODs is outlined below.
1. Declaration
• Site Name and Location
• Statement of Basis and Purpose
In some cases, RODs will be prepared that include both interim
actions and a final action; such RODs should clearly specify which
components of the action are interim and which are final. For any final
action components, the ROD should include the information and
documentation required for the "standard ROD." For example, where
a ROD includes a final source control measure and a temporary
alternate water supply, the ROD must provide the documentation
required in the "standard format" for the final source control action, as
well as addressing, in the streamlined manner discussed above, the
rationale and justification for the interim water supply action. In this
example, it would be necessary to address the contaminated ground
water in a final action ROD at a later time.
-------
Assessment of the Site
Description of Selected Remedy
Statutory Determinations: The declaration
statement should read as follows:
This interim action is protective of human health
and the environment, complies with (or waives)
Federal and State applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements for this limited-scope
action, and is cost-effective. This action is interim
and is not intended to utilize permanent solutions
and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent practicable for
this [site/operable unit]. [Note: Where treatment is
utilized, replace the prior sentence with the following:
"Although this interim action is not intended to
address fully the statutory mandate for permanence
and treatment to the maximum extent practicable,
this interim action does utilize treatment and thus is
in furtherance of that statutory mandate."] Because
this action does not constitute the final remedy for
the [site/operable unit], the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces
toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element
[Note: Include if treatment is being used: "although
partially addressed in this remedy"] will be
addressed by the final response action. Subsequent
actions are planned to address fully the threats
posed by the conditions at this [site/operable unit].
Because this remedy will result in hazardous
substances remaining on site above health-based
levels, a review will be conducted to ensure that
the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment
within five years after commencement of the
remedial action. Because this is an interim action
ROD, review of this site and of this remedy will be
ongoing as EPA continues to develop final
remedial alternatives for the [site/operable unit].
Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the
Remedy
Decision Summary
Site Name, Location, and Description
Site History and Enforcement Activities
Highlights of Community Participation
Scope and Role of Operable Unit: This section
provides the rationale for taking the limited action.
To the extent that information is available, the
section should detail how the response action fits
into the overall site strategy. This section should state
that the interim action will be consistent with any
planned future actions, to the extent possible.
• Site Characteristics: This section should focus on the
description of those site or operable unit characteristics
to be addressed by the interim remedy.
• Summary of Site Risks: This section should focus on
risks addressed by the interim action and should provide
the rationale for the limited scope of the action. The
rationale can be supported by facts that indicate that
temporary action is necessary to stabilize the site or
portion of the site, prevent further environmental
degradation, or achieve significant risk reduction quickly
while a final remedial solution is being developed.
Qualitative risk information may be presented if
quantitative risk information is not yet available, which
often will be the case. The more specific findings of the
baseline risk assessment should be included in the
subsequent final action ROD for the operable unit and
the ultimate cleanup objectives (i.e., acceptable exposure
levels) for the site or operable unit.
• Description of Alternatives: This section should describe
the limited alternatives that were considered for the
interim action (generally three or fewer). Only those
requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) to the limited-scope
interim action should be incorporated into the
description of alternatives.
• Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives: The
comparative analysis should be presented in light of the
limited scope of the action. Evaluation criteria not
relevant to the evaluation of interim actions need not be
addressed in detail. Rather, their irrelevance to the
decision should be noted briefly.
• Selected Remedy
• Statutory Determinations: The interim action should
protect human health and the environment from the
exposure pathway or threat it is addressing and the waste
material being managed. The ARARs discussion should
focus only on those ARARs specific to the interim
action (e.g., residuals management during
implementation).4 The discussion under "utilization of
permanent solutions and treatment to the maximum
extent practicable" should indicate that the interim
action is not designed or expected to be final, but that
the selected remedy represents the best balance of
An interim remedy waiver may be appropriate where a requirement
that is ARAR cannot be met as part of the interim remedy but will be
attained (unless use of one of the other five waivers is justified) by the
final site remedy (CERCLA §121(d)(4)(A) and NCP
300.430(f)(l)fii)(C)(l)).
-------
3.
III.
tradeoffs among alternatives with respect to
pertinent criteria, given the limited scope of the
action. The discussion under the preference for
treatment section should note that the preference
will be addressed in the final decision document
for the site or final operable unit.
Explanation of Significant Changes
Responsiveness Summary.
DOCUMENTING CONTINGENCY REMEDIES
The lead agency in consultation with the support
agency may decide to incorporate a contingency remedy in
the ROD. Use of a contingency ROD may be appropriate
when there is significant uncertainty about the ability of
remedial options to achieve remediation levels (e.g.,
cleanup of an aquifer to non-zero MCLGs or MCLs).
For example, a contingency ROD may be
appropriate when the performance of an innovative
treatment technology (or a demonstrated technology being
used on a waste for which performance data are not
available) appears to be the most promising option, but
additional testing will be needed during remedial design to
verify the technology's performance capabilities; in this
case, a more "proven approach" could be identified as a
contingency remedy. [Note: The use of contingency
remedies should be carefully considered. Site managers
should perform the necessary steps of treatability studies/
field investigations to evaluate a technology's performance
capabilities during the RI/FS. More detailed testing at the
operational-scale level may be performed during design.]
Where applicable, the ROD should specify under
what circumstances the contingency remedy would be
implemented, i.e., what are the criteria (e.g. failure to
achieve desired performance levels) that EPA will use to
decide to implement the contingency option as opposed to
the selected remedy.
CONTINGENCY REMEDY ROD FORMAT
1. Declaration
• Site Name and Location
• Statement of Basis and Purpose
• Assessment of the Site
• Description of the Selected Remedy: Both the
selected remedy and the contingency remedy
should be described in bullet form.
• Statutory Determinations: The Declaration should be
modified to indicate that both the selected remedy and
the contingency remedy will satisfy the statutory
requirements.
• Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the
Remedy
2. Decision Summary
• Site Name, Location, and Description
• Site History and Enforcement Activities
• Highlights of Community Participation
• Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action
• Site Characteristics
• Summary of Site Risks
• Description of Alternatives: This section should identify
any uncertainties about the use of the technologies being
considered, and the extent additional testing is needed.
The selected remedy and the contingency remedy must
be fully described.
• Summary of Comparative Analysis: The selected
remedy and the contingency remedy should be evaluated
fully against the nine criteria; the uncertainties should be
noted, as well as the expectations for performance.
Community (and support agency) acceptance of an
innovative technology should be discussed in light of the
CERCLA provisions in Section 121(b)(2), which takes
into account the degree of support for the action by the
community.
• Selected Remedy: The selected and contingency
remedies should be identified. Additional
testing/investigations to occur as part of remedial design
to further evaluate the selected remedy should be
discussed. The criteria that will be used to decide to
implement the contingency remedy should be identified.
• Statutory Determinations: The statutory determination
discussion should document that both remedies fulfill
CERCLA Section 121 requirements.
• Explanation of Significant Changes
3. Responsiveness Summary.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this memorandum are intended solely as guidance. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create
any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this
memorandum, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of specific site circumstances. The Agency also reserves the right to
change this guidance any time without public notice.
------- |