&EPA
United Stales
Agency
Office of
Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9340.2-01
TITLE: Preparation Of Decision For Approving
Fund-Financed And PRP Remedial Actions Under
CERCIA
APPROVAL DATE: 02/27/85
EFFECTIVE DATE: 02/27/85
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OERR/OPM
SPINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OS WER OS WER OS WER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
03/19/87 United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA OSWER Directive Initiation Request
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person Mail Code Office, '
ENGELBERT OERR/OPM
1. Directive Number
• 9340.2-01
Telephone Number
382-2441
3. Title . .
PREPERATION OF DECISION DOCUMENTS FOR APPROVING
FUND-FINANCED AND PRP REMEDIAL
4. Summary of Directive (Include brief statement of purpose)
OWPE document assists Regional offices in the
preperation of decision documents required for the
approval of fund-financed and PRP remedial
actions. A Record of Decision (ROD), a Negotiation
Decision Document (NDD) required for all remedial
actions financed from i the Trust Fund , documents
the Agency's decision making process and ,
demonstrates that the requirements of CERCLA and
the NCP have been met. This procedure will provide
the basis for future cost recovery action that may
be undertaken. (Signed J. McGraw 2/27/85)
i
5. Keywords
SUPERFUND, CERCLA, ENFORCEMENT, RECORD OF DECISION, NEGOTIATED
DECISION DOCUMENT, ETC.
6a. Does this Directive Supercede Previous Directives)?) | yes [ Xj No What directive (number, title)
b. Does it Supplement Previous Directive's)? I \ yes 1 XJ No What directive (number, title)
7. Draft Level
' , ' . i
A-SlgnedbyAA/DAA 1 B - Signed by Office Director ~"^H C - For Review & Q
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
8. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator 1
9. Name and Title of Approving Official . 1
J. MCGRAW
xnment In Development
Date
Date
02/27/85
OSWER OSWER OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
UNITED STATES EN V!RONMENT AL °RGTECT'QN AGENCY
FEB IT B85
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Preparation of Decision Documents for Approving
^und-Financed and Potentially Responsible Party
eme/Jial Actions Under CERCLA
FROM:
Jting Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrator
Regions I-X "'
PURPOSE
This memorandum and the attached information have been
prepared to assist Regional Offices in the preparation of the
decision documents required for the approval of Fund-financed
and potentially responsible party (PRP) remedial actions. A
Record of Decision (ROD) will be required for all remedial actions
financed with monies from the Trust Fund (with the exception of
some initial remedial measures (IRMs) as described below). The
ROD will document the Agency's decisionmaking process and demon-
strate that the requirements of CERCLA and the NCP have been met.
This procedure will provide the basis for future cost recovery
actions that may be undertaken.
A ROD will be used for sites where PRPs exist and negotia-
tions may occur to determine if the PRPs will implement the
approved remedy. For enforcement lead sites/ a Negotiation
Decision Document (NDD) will generally be prepared instead of
a ROD. In addition, when the Regional Administrator determines
that greater flexibility is required to negotiate with PRPs at
Fund-lead sites/ an alternative to the ROD process should be
followed. In those cases, an NDD will be prepared to approve
the range of negotiation flexibility. Following completion of
negotiations, an Enforcement Decision Document (EDO) will be
prepared to approve remedial actions to be implemented by PRPs.
REGIONAL DELEGATION
This guidance has been developed in anticipation of additional
delegation of remedy approval authority to Regional Administrators.
The guidance applies to IRMs that were delegated in FY 84 and to
those remedial actions expected to be delegated in FY 85. Procedures
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
-2-
for delegating a significant number of the FY 85 remedial actions
will be issued during the first auarter of FY 85.
Current policy requires a formal ROD for IRMs involving off-
site transport and disposal of wastes since specific determinations
(e.a.. CERCLA section 101(24)) are required. IRMs not involving
off-site disposal may be approved using the Action Memorandum
process. In these latter cases, the Action Memorandum should be
modified to include the necessary determinations required in a
ROD (e.g., the action is cost-effective, provides adequate protection
of public health, welfare, and the environment, and is in balance
with the resources of the Fund). All other remedial actions
(source control and off-site measures) will require a formal ROD.
In addition to the remedy selection criteria provided in
the NCP and the Feasibility Study Guidance, ROD and EDD decision
criteria will be developed in order to ensure national consistency
in the selection of Regional and Headquarters approved remedies.
To this end, we have established a process to document technical
and policy decisions for specific remedial actions made by the
Regional Administrators and the Assistant Administrator. Each
ROD and EDD approved in Headquarters is being analyzed to identify
key subiect areas. An Issue Abstract will be prepared to explain
policy decisions made in each key area. The compilation of
these summaries will create a body of decision criteria for use
by Headouarters and Regional Offices. Headquarters will analyze
decisions made over time in specific subject areas to determine
if Generic decision criteria should be prepared.
Reoions are responsible for the preparation and submission
to Headquarters for national distribution of Issue Abstracts for
all IRMs and other remedial actions approved in FY 85 by the
Regional. Administrators. Issue Abstracts should clearly identify
the issues presented to the Regional Administrator during the
remedial alternative selection briefing and the resolution of
those issues. The abstract must use the approved format including
the identification of key words and must be reviewed and concurred
uoon by the Office of Regional Counsel. A format and list of
key words are included in Attachment 1. The appropriate Zone
Manager in the Hazardous Site Control Division should be contacted
for site-specific assistance in Issue Abstract preparation.
POD APPROVAL PROCESS
The existina process for preparation of RODS at either State
or RPA-lead sites is for the Region (or State) to prepare a draft
POD following completion of a remedial investigation/feasibility
study (RI/FS). Figure 1 shows the general process for preparation,
review, and approval of RODs. Attachment 2 provides information
on POD format and content. The Region and State should review
the RI/FS to ensure that typical problem areas identified in with
tho preferred remedy, and that the RI/FS addresses appropriate
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
-3-
alternatives, including full technical compliance with other
environmental programs. The draft RI/FS should be reviewed
concurrently by State and Regional staff prior to start of the
public comment period. Other Federal agencies such as the Centers
for Disease Control (CDC), Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), or the Corps of Engineers (COE) should be involved in
RI/FS review, as appropriate.
A pre-ROD briefing for Headquarters management following
review of the draft RI/FS may be needed for technically complex
sites or when significant policy issues exist. For example, when
review of the draft RI/FS indicates that Fund-balancing may be
a basis for selecting a remedy that does not comply with the
relevant and applicable environmental requirements, a pre-ROD
briefing will always be required. Fund-balancing considerations
may require that the Region and State revise their recommended
remedial action prior to preparation and approval of the ROD.
When Fund-balancing will not apply to a ROD, the Regional
Administrators can make the affirmative Fund-balancing determin-
ations required in the ROD Declaration (that the selected remedy
is in balance with amounts in the Fund) for delegated projects.
This determination can be made when the proposed project is on
the approved Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP)
and the cost of the proposed project is within the budget of the
approved SCAP.
Once significant technical and policy issues are resolved,
the Region and State will begin the public comment period on the
draft feasibility study and the Region (or State) will prepare a
draft ROD and supporting documentation. Following completion
of the public comment period, a responsiveness summary should be
prepared to address all comments by the public and views of the
PRPs, whether or not submitted as "comments". The draft ROD may
need to be revised in response to public comment on the feasibility
study.
The draft ROD and responsiveness summary must be reviewed
and concurred on by the State and appropriate Regional Offices.
The State's concurrence with the recommended remedial alternative
should be documented in a letter from the appropriate State
official to the Regional Administrator. The Regional review and
approval process should ensure that all concerned offices are
involved. The Office of Regional Counsel (ORC) should be involved
throughout the ROD development process, beginning with the review
of the remedial investigation, to assure that all enforcement
sensitive issues are properly presented and that the ROD is
legally defensible. Before the ROD is presented to the Regional
Administrator for signature, ORC concurrence is necessary. The
Regional program office should review the ROD for technical
adequacy. The Regional Enforcement program must review and
concur on all RODs to help ensure consistency between fund- and
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
-4-
enforcement-lead projects. Other programs should be consulted
to ensure, consistency when the remedial action involves other
environmental acts, regulations, or program activities. For
example, RODs involving the treatment, storage, destruction or
disposal of hazardous wastes should be consistent with RCRA
regulations and technical standards. The final step in the
review and approval process is to brief the Regional Adminis-
trator and obtain his or her approval of the recommended action.
Headauarters will follow a similar review process for RODs not
delegated to the Regions.
For Headquarter decision RODs, the Region should prepare and
review the ROD prior to submission to Headquarters following the
above review process. The official submission should be sent
to the Assistant Administrator, OSWER,, and should include a
cover memorandum from the Regional Administrator to the Assistant
Administrator, OSWER. The memo should summarize the proposed
project and present the State and Region's recommendation to
approve the action. A copy of the complete submission should be
sent directly to the Director, Hazardous Site Control Division.
An additional consideration is the coordination of ROD
review with other necessary documents. In the case of Fund-
financed actions, either a Cooperative Agreement or an Interagency
Agreement with the Corps of Engineers should follow a parallel
review process to ensure that EPA approval of the remedy and EPA
approval of funding for design occur in the same time period.
For sites where PRPs have been identified and negotiations have
been determined to be appropriate in accordance with Superfund
policy, PRPs may be given the opportunity to conduct the ROD
remedy. In this case, PRP negotiations should be concluded
within 60 days of remedy approval.
NDD/EDD APPROVAL PROCESS
An NDD should be developed by the program office in consul-
tation with the Regional Counsel and should be concurred upon by
the ORC. For enforcement lead sites an NDD will generally be
prepared instead of a ROD. In addition, at Fund lead sites, the
Regional Administrator may determine that flexibility to negotiate
the extent of remedy is needed and an NDD will be prepared instead
of a ROD. This approach is appropriate, for example, when nego-
tiations could result in a remedy that provides greater public
health or environmental protection than the Fund-financed and
Fund-balanced remedy. Figure 2 depicts the remedy selection
process for sites in this category. In these limited situations,
the Region may choose not to recommend a particular alternative
in the feasibility study and to prepare an NDD in place of a ROD.
The Region should base its decision to include the recommendation
of an alternative in the feasibility study on the anticipated
scope and nature of PRP negotiations.
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
-5-
The NDD will contain a discussion of the alternatives
identified in the draft RI/FS and will indicate the preferred
alternative to serve as a basis for negotiations with PRPs. In
selecting the alternative for negotiation with PRPs, the Region
will consider the criteria found in sections 300.68 of the NCP,
exclusive of the Fund-balancing requirements (300.680O). Other
criteria to be considered include litigative risks that have
been defined, consistency with previous enforcement decisions,
public interest considerations, complexity and length of litiga-
tion, likelihood of obtaining the desired remedy through litigation
and availability of the Fund. The NDD should indicate the areas
where flexibility in negotiation with PRPs may be appropriate,
e.g., within an alternative (phased actions) or among alternative
remedies, where appropriate. The NDD and support documentation
will be an Enforcement Confidential document and will be used by
the Agency negotiating team in preparing settlement terms with
the PRPs.
Where delegation is not authorized, the official Regional
submission of the NDD, following completion of the public comment
period on the draft RI/FS, should include a cover memorandum
from the Regional Administrator to the Assistant Administrator,
OSWER. A copy of the complete submission should be sent to the
Director, CERCLA Enforcement Division and the Director, Hazardous
Site Control Division. The memo should summarize the recommended
alternative and include a summary of public comment, including
the views of the PRPs, as well as the Region's and, where appro-
priate, the State's recommendation that the alternative selected
be used as a basis for negotiations with PRPs.
Negotiations should be concluded within a 60 to 120 day
period for enforcement-lead sites. When negotiations have
concluded successfully, an EDO will be prepared which will serve
the dual purpose of the ROD with regard to the appropriate extent
of remedy for the site and OSWER concurrence of settlement terms
with PRPs. The EDO will be prepared by the Regional program
division at the same time as the documents of settlement (either
an administrative order on consent or a consent decree). As with
NDDs and RODs/ the ORC should participate in the development of
the EDO and concur with the EDO. Where delegation is not authorized,
the EDO will be sent by the Regional Administrator to the Assistant
Administrator of OSWER for final approval.
The EDO generally should contain a discussion of the areas
found in the ROD prepared for a Fund-lead site. The EDO is a
necessary document which serves the function of the ROD document
for an enforcement-lead site. It will include a tabulation of
the technical background documents, the alternatives considered
by the Agency for remedial response by the responsible parties,
and the responsiveness summary of the public comments on the
RI/FS. The EDD will be a public document and should be available
for public review and comment at the same time that the adminis-
trative order on consent or consent decree, containing details
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
-6-
of the settlement between the Agency and the PRPs, is made
available for public comment in accordance with Department of
Justice or EPA policies and regulations. Attachment 2 also
provides" information on NDD and EDO format and content.
When negotiations are not successful and Fund-financed
action is warranted, the NDD will serve as the basis for
preparation of a ROD and its supporting documentation, so that
a cost-effective remedy can be selected. The approved remedy
will be implemented through either a Fund-financed response or
through litigation.
SUMMARY
A number of additional guidance and policy documents are
available, in either draft or final jjorm, to assist in the
development of RI/FS projects. These documents should also be
used to ensure the adequacy of RODs and NDD/EDDs. These include
the proposed NCP revisions (February 12, 1985) which discuss the
reouirements for CERCLA compliance with other environmental acts
and a modified definition of cost-effectiveness. Requirements
for selecting off-site disposal facilities are discussed in a
January 28, 1983, memorandum on that subject, and are currently
being revised to address recent issues such as the amendments to
PCRA. Finally, draft RI and FS guidance documents are available
describing the analysis necessary to conduct RI/FSs, and documents
describing P.I/FS procedures for generic types of sites (i.e.,
drums and tanks, surface impoundments, and alternate water
supplies) are being developed.
. Questions on ROD preparation should be directed to the
appropriate Regional Coordinator for Fund-lead sites. Questions
on responsiveness summaries should be directed to the Superfund
Community Relations Coordinator. Additional guidance on the
content and format of RODS, NDDs, and EDDs will be provided as
EPA gains additional experience on their preparation. Within the
next year, the Regions will be requested to submit comments and
recommended changes on the available guidance, based on their
experience in using it. This will allow for a periodic update
of the guidance, to reflect the needs of the program as it develops
Assistance on preparation of NDDs and EDDs will be provided by
Headquarters staff on a site-specific basis. Questions on NDD
or EDD preparation should be directed to the appropriate Regional
Coordinator for Enforcement-lead sites.
Attachments
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
-7-
cc: Director, Waste Management Division, Regions I and V
Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region III
Director, Air and Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions IV, VI, VII, VIII
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division, Region IX
Director, Air and Waste Division, Region X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
Regional Superfund Community Relations Coordinators
Headquarters Zone Managers, HSCD
Headquarters Regional Coordinators, OWPE
Headquarters Superfund Community Relations Coordinators
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
FIGURE 1
REMEDY SELECTION PROCESS
FUND-LEAD
PREPARE
DRAFT ROD
PUBLIC
COMMENT
PERIOD
PREPARE
FINAL ROD
& RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY
APPROVE
ROD
OPTION
ROD REMEDY
NEGOTIATED FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
BY PRP
FUND-FINANCED
RESPONSE
(NO SETTLEMENT)
PRP RESPONSE
(SETTLEMENT)
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
FIGURE 2
REMEDY SELECTION PROCESS
ENFORCEMENT-LEAD
COMPLETE
RI/FS
PREPARE
DRAFT
NOO
PUBLIC & PRP
COMMENT
PERIOD
1
NEGOTIATIONS
WITH
PRPs
J
PREPARE
FINAL NOD &
RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY
COMPLETE
NEGOTIATIONS
WITH PRPs
1
NO SETTLEMENT
PREPARE
EDD
(SETTLEMENT)
FUND-FINANCED
RESPONSE
(PREPARED ROD)
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
(LITIGATION)
APPROVE
EDD
PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD ON
SETTLEMENT AND
RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY
i
FINAL EDD
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
ATTACHMENT 1
ROD/EDO ISSUES ABSTRACT
Site; [Site Name]
Region; [Region Number]
RA Briefing; [ROD/EDO Briefing Date for RA]
SITE DESCRIPTION
Describe the site in terms of:
location
history of operations, and types and quantities of wastes received
site specific characteristics, as appropriate
contaminated media and types and concentrations of hazardous
substances present
NOTE: This section should not exceed one paragraph.
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
Describe remedial alternative selected for the site including:
major components of the remedy
operation and maintenance requirements
estimated capital cost and operation and maintenance costs
discuss justification for Fund balancing if appropriate
NOTE: This section should not exceed one paragraph.
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS KEY WORDS
The purpose of this section is to document Key words are used to
key issues identified during the ROD/EDD review identify the issues
and approval process. The criteria, rationale discussed under Issues
and standards used to resolve these issues and Resolutions. (A
should be included in the discussion. Of standard key words list
particular importance are those issues for Issues Abstracts is
pertaining to: attached.)
- elimination of the no action alternative
- compliance with other environmental
laws (e.g., RCRA, TSCA, CWA)
- decisions concerning "how clean is clean"
- fund balancing
(A sample ROD Issues Abstract is attached)
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
KEY WORDS LIST FOR ISSUES ABSTRACTS
Types of Waste
Herbicide
Liquid Waste
Mining
Pesticide
Petroleum
Media Contaminated
Air
Aquatic Impacts
Drinking Water
Ground Water (Aquifer, Plume)
Soil
Subsurface
Surface Water
Wetlands
Wood
General/Specific
Hazardous Compounds
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Carcinogenic Compounds
Chromium
Heavy Metals
Lead
Organics (volatile/ Extractable)
PAH
PCB
Sludge
Solvent(s)
Synfuels
Other Agencies
CDC
COE
DOD
DOJ
FEMA
ROD/EDD/NDD
Cost/Benefit
Cost Estimates
Deed Restrictions
Deferred Decisions
Fund Balancing
Ground Water Strategy
Initial Remedial Measure
Internal Remedy
NDD
Negotiated Settlement
No Action Alternative
O&M (Expense, Funding)
Operable Unit
PRP
Publicly-owned Site
RA Approved Action
Recoverable Cost
Relocation (Temporary,
Permanent)
Regulatory Waivers
ROD
ROD Addendum
Shared Costs
Supplemental ROD
Temporary Remedial
Alternative
Miscellaneous
Environmental Impacts
Environmental Standards
Remnant Contamination
Water Supply
Alternate Water Supply
Community Service
Enhancements
Fire Protection
Internal Plumbing
Water Supply System
Well Field
Water Rights
As of January 15, 1985
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
KEY WORDS LIST FOR ISSUES ABSTRACTS
(Continued)
Site Specific Characteristics
Drums
Flood Plain (Assessment)
Fractured Bedrock
Ground Water
Hydrogeologic
Lagoon
Seismic (Activity, Zone)
Subsidence
Standards/Regulations/
Permits/Guidance
Air Permits
Air Quality
Alternate Concentration Limit
Ambient Air Quality Criteria
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Background Levels
CERCLA
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act 404 permit
Cleanup Criteria
Discharge Standards
Drinking Water Standards
Feasibility Study Guidance Document
Institutional Controls
RCRA 264
RCRA Closure Requirements
RCRA Interim Status
RCRA Landfill Requirements
RCRA Location Criteria
RCRA On site Disposal Requirements
SNARL
Water Quality
Water Rights
Testing/Pilot Studies
EPA Toxicity Test
Fixation Test
Leachability Test
Treatability Test
Technology
Air Stripping
Alternative Technology
Barrier
Best Available Technology
Carbon adsorption
Capping
Containment
Dredging
Excavation
Filling
Fixation
Incineration
Land Treatment
Leachate Collection
Levees
Lined Landfill Cell(s)
Liner
Monitoring (Air, Groundwater)
Offsite Disposal
Offsite Plume Control
Onsite Treatment
Permanent Containment
Plume Management
Remedial Technology
Slurry Wall
Source Control
Stabilization
Public Concerns
Analytical Data
Data Adequacy
Direct Contact
Public Exposure
Public Health Risk
Risk Assessment
Risk Level
Trend Analysis
Volatilization
As of January 15, 1985
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
SAMPLE
ROD ISSUES ABSTRACT
Site; Bio-Ecology Systems Site, Texas
Region; VI
AA, OSWER
Briefing Date; February 6, 1984
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Bio-Ecology site is an 11.2 acre tract located in Grand
Prairie, Texas. The site is bounded in all directions by private prop-
erty and also on the east and south by^.the tributaries of Old Mountain
Creek. The Bio-Ecology waste disposal site was a Class I industrial
solid waste management facility which was permitted to; 1) incinerate
combustible liquids, slurries and sludges; 2) chemically treat acids,
caustics and other waste chemical solutions, excluding those containing
heavy metals; 3) treat waste waters using biological oxidation; and
4) landfill solids from other treatment processes. The site was ac-
tively operated from June 1972 through 1978.
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The cost-effective remedial alternative includes: raising the ele-
vation above the 100-year flood plain; construction of an on-site dis-
posal cell with synthetic liner and a leachate collection system; con-
struction of a final cover, liner and leachate collection and removal
system in accordance with RCRA Part 264; stabilize the waste and
encapsulate in an on-site cell; construct a fence; and install a ground
water monitoring system in accordance with RCRA Part 264. The capital
cost for the selected alternative is estimated to be $2,709,600.
Operation and maintenance costs for the first year are estimated to be
$20,000.
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS KEY WORDS
1. A source control remedy was considered which . On-Site Containment
provided a degree of protection somewhat . RCRA Landfill
less than that of the fully protective RCRA
consistent remedy. However, the source con-
trol remedy which includes construction of an
on-site RCRA landfill was selected because it
complies with appropriate RCRA regulations
and provides a high degree of long term reli-
ability with a minimal increase in cost.
. -1-
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
SAMPLE
Bio-Ecology Systems Site, Texas
February 6, 1984
Continued
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS KEY WORDS
A waiver was not granted from RCRA ground . Ground Water
water protection regulations (Part 264 Contamination
Subpart F). Existing data was not adequate . Ground Water
to determine if contaminated ground water Monitoring
was.leaving the site. A monitoring program . RCRA Part 264
was developed to comply with RCRA. If con-
tamination is identified in the future, re-
medial action will be evaluated consistent
with the NCP.
-2-
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
ATTACHMENT 2
ROD CONTENT AND FORMAT
The ROD package is made up of several documents. Formats
for these are included in this attachment. These include:
(].) Format for the ROD, NDD and EDO
(2) Format for the Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
(3) Format for the Community Relations Responsiveness Summary
(4) Format for briefing the Regional or Assistant Administrator
The primary purpose of the ROD and supporting information is to
document that the remedial action is consistent with CERCLA and
the NCP. Generally, this will involve making the determinations
required by CERCLA and the NCP in the ROD signed by the Regional
or Assistant Administrator. In addition, the key steps of the
RI/FS must be summarized in the Summary of Remedial Alternative
Selection to show that the NCP decisionmaking process has been
followed. If the RI/FS does not contain the required information
(such as evaluation of alternatives that attain and exceed
applicable and relevant Federal public health and environmental
standards), the ROD package must include this information. In
this way, any gaps in the RI/FS will be filled. Regional and
Headquarters staff should review the RI/FS to determine if
additional work is needed to accomplish this and if additional
public comment may be appropriate. The REM/FIT or REM II
contractors can be tasked to assist in this area. The following
list describes typical areas that must be discussed in the ROD
or summary information:
1. Consistency with NCP. The summary information must
show that alternatives were developed, screened, and
evaluated in accordance with sections 300.68(g) through
(i) of the NCP. When the feasibility study is adequate
in this area, the ROD document should briefly summarize
the process and reference the feasibility study for
additional information.
2. No-action alternative. Under Section 300.68(g) of the
NCP, the Agency evaluates, a no-action alternative.
The ROD summary must document that no-action was
evaluated and describe the reasons for elimination of
no-action {e.g. the release poses an actual or potential
threat to public health or the environment).
3. Extent of remedy. The ROD summary must explain how
the level of cleanup for the recommended remedy was
determined. The remedial action may be based on
applicable and/or relevant Federal public health or
environmental standards. When standards are used, the
ROD summary must document how the standards will be
applied and describe the engineering approach to cost-
effectively implement the standards. When existing
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
-2-
standards, criteria, or regulations are not used, the
approach used to establish a level of cleanup must be
developed in consultation with Headquarters. If the
recommended alternative does not attain or exceed
applicable or relevant standards, the ROD summary must
explain the basis for that decision.
Cost estimates. Costs must be shown for all final
alternatives evaluated in the feasibility study. A
table showing the remedial action cost, annual operation
and maintenance (O&M) cost, and total present worth
should be included. It is important to evaluate the
accuracies of cost estimates. Expected accuracies for
feasibility study estimates should be within +50 and
-30 percent of the actual cost. Remedial investigation
data should be sufficient for this purpose. If existing
data cannot support an adequate cost estimate, submission
of the ROD should be delayed until additional field
data can be collected and the cost estimates revised.
Cost-effectiveness evaluation. The factors used to
screen and evaluate alternatives are described in
section 300.68(h) and (i) of the NCP. Draft guidance
on preparation of feasibility studies has also been
sent for Regional review. The ROD summary must describe
what factors were used to screen and evaluate alter-
natives. The feasibility study must include a narrative
description of the advantages and disadvantages of each
factor for all alternatives. These should be summarized
in the ROD summary. In addition, the advantages (and
disadvantages) of the recommended alternative should
be discussed in the ROD summary. If the feasibility
study developed a numerical ranking of alternatives and
effectiveness factors, this can be included as backup
for the narrative discussion. A tabular format has
been developed to replace.the numerical ranking matrix.
This format should be prepared for each ROD. Several
samples have been included in the Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection.
CERCLA section 101(24). If all or part of the recom-
mended remedial action involves off-site transport,
storage, destruction or disposal of hazardous wastes,
the requirements of section 101(24) must be met. The
remedial action or component involving off-site
activities must be more cost-effective than other
remedial actions, create new capacity to manage hazardous
substances in addition to those at the facility, or be
necessary to protect public health, welfare, or the
environment from a present or potential risk. This
determination is included in the ROD and must be discussed
in the ROD summary document. Existing guidance on
specific requirements for off-site facilities receiving
wastes is being revised. This guidance will identify
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
-3-
factors for use in selecting acceptable disposal
facilities. Therefore, Regions should be prepared to
describe the adequacy of potential disposal facilities
during the ROD briefing for the Regional or Assistant
Administrator.
7. Responsiveness Summary. Any draft ROD circulated for
internal review should summarize citizen and potentially
responsible party concerns known at that time. The
responsiveness summary, included as a part of the final
ROD package, must include a summary of comments received
before and during the public comment period as well as
activities conducted by EPA or the State to elicit
citizen input. Comments from all parties, including
potentially responsible parties, must be summarized,
including views of PRPs not formally presented as
"comments" (e.g., letters to' the Agency, PRP-Funded
contractor studies, etc.). The summary must respond
to comments and discuss in detail: (1) any changes
made due to comments received; (2) how the selected
remedy differs from the community or potentially respon-
sible parties' preferred alternative; and (3) any
slternatives recommended that were not evaluated in
the feasibility study and why they were not included.
The responsiveness summary should not be sent to the
public or potentially responsible parties until the
ROD is approved by the deciding official. (At such
time, the summary response to comments may need to be
revised to reflect the final decision should it differ
from the preferred alternative in the ROD). Any comments
received after the close of the comment period raising
new issues or providing new information should be
considered and addressed by the Regional Program and
Regional Counsel's Office.
8. Operation and Maintenance (O&M). If the recommended
remedial action requires future O&M, the ROD should
describe the O&M activities being approved. The ROD
summary should describe the estimated duration and
cost of O&M activities. It should also describe the
funding requested from EPA and the State's mechanism
for funding and carrying out the O&M activities.
9. Negotiation Flexibility. If the Region is recommending
negotiations with PRPs before approval of a remedial
action, the recommended flexibility should be discussed
in the Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection (although
an NDD only makes a recommendation and not a selection,
the title of the summary will remain the same since the
format and content is essentially the same). This
should include a recommendation on the potentially
acceptable range of the extent of remedy if different
than the cost-effective alternative. The technical
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
4
differences between remedies proposed by PRPs and the
Region's recommendations should be discussed. Finally,
the NDD should define a time schedule for negotiations
with PRPs.
The remainder of this attachment includes additional
information on the required content of ROD packages.
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
SITE: [Site name, location]
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents
describing the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial
alternatives for the [site name]:
- [Site name] Remedial Investigation
- [Site name] Feasibility Study
«•
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Responsiveness Summary
- [Other relevant reports or documentation of the remedy
selection process]
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
- [List major components of remedy]
- [List operation and maintenance reguirements if funding
will be reguested]
Note; Care must be taken to list all documents used to reach
the final decision. Secondary references included in
the the listed documents need not be listed here.
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National
Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300), I have determined that the
[description of remedy] at the [site name] is a cost-effective
remedy and provides adeguate protection of public health, welfare,
and the environment. The State of [State name] has been consulted
and agrees with the approved remedy. [Include the following if
appropriate] In addition, the action will reguire future operation
and maintenance activities to ensure the continued effectiveness
of the remedy. These activities will be considered part of the
approved action and eligible for Trust Fund monies for a period
of [insert funding period not to exceed 1 year].
I have also determined that the action being taken is
appropriate when balanced against the availability of Trust Fund
monies for use at other sites. [Include the following sentence
if remedy involves off-site actions] In addition, the off-site
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
2
transport, storage, destruction, treatment, or secure disposition
[use appropriate wording based on actual remedy] is more cost-
effective, than other remedial action, [include the following if
appropriate] and will create new capacity to manage hazardous
waste, [include the following if appropriate] and is necessary
to protect public health, welfare or the environment.
Note: Language for fund balancing waivers or waivers from other
environmental regulations will be worked out on a site-
specific basis.
[Include the following if appropriate.] The State [or EPA]
will undertake an additional remedial investigation/feasibility
study to evaluate [describe scope of RI/FS]. If additional
remedial actions are determined to be necessary a Record of
Decision will be prepared for approval*' of the future remedial
action.
Date Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
or
Regional Administrator
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-0
Model
Negotiation Decision Document
Remedial Alternative Selection
(Enforcement Confidential)
SITE
- Name
- Location
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents
describing the analysis of the cost and effectiveness of the
remedial alternatives for the [site name].
- (Site name] Remedial Investigation
- (Site name) Feasibility Study
«f
- Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
- Summary of public comment
- Summary of Enforcement Analysis for Negotiation with PRPs
- Comments from the PRP group on the draft Feasibility
Study for the (site name]
- Other relevant reports or documentation of the remedy
selection process
Note: Care must be taken to list all documents used to reach
the final decision. Secondary references included in
the listed documents need not be listed.
DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED REMEDY
- Summarize remedial action (e.g., tank removal, soil
removal, grade property, operation and maintenance)
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDY FOR NEGOTIATION WITH PRPs
a. Remedial Alternative
- Other acceptable alternatives or variations to the
selected remedy.
b. Negotiation Strategy and Time Schedule
- The Agency recommends (insert settlement negotiation
schedule to finalize NDD, initiate negotiations* finalize
negotiations, issue a unilateral Administrative Order (AO),
effect an AO, and begin a Fund-financed action] for nego-
tiations of a settlement with PRPs.
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
Date Assistant Administrator
Office of SolidWaste and Emergency Response
or
Regional Administrator
Attachments;
Enforcement Analysis for Negotiation with PRPs
[Site name] PRPs list
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
Model
Enforcement Decision Document
Remedial Alternative Selection
SITE
- Name
- Location
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents
describing the analysis of the cost and effectiveness
of remedial alternatives for the [site name]:
- [Site name] Remedial Investigation
- [Site name) Feasibility Study
- Responsiveness Summary
- Settlement Document
- Other relevant reports or documentation of the
remedy selection process
Note: Care must be taken to list all documents used to reach
the final decision. Secondary references included in
the listed documents need not be listed.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
- List major components of remedy
- List operation and maintenance requirements if
funding will be requested
- List other relevant details of the remedy from the
Settlement Document.
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the
National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300), I have determined
that the [description of remedy] at the (siu name] is a cost-
effective remedy that provides adequate protection of public
health, welfare and the environment. The State of [State name]
has been consulted and agrees with the approved r«medy. [Include
the following if appropriate) In addition, the action will
require future operation and maintenance activities to ensure
the continued effectiveness of the remedy. These activities
will be considered part of the approved action. Settlements
have been reached between EPA and the responsible parties based
on the selected remedy.
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
I have also determined that the action beinq taken is
a cost-effective alternative when compared to the other remedial
options reviewed. [If appropriate, include the following sentence
if remedy involves off-site actions] In addition, the off- site
transport, storage, destruction, treatment, or secure disposition
[use appropriate wording based on actual remedy] is more cost-
effective than other remedial action alternatives considered and
will create new capacity to manage hazardous waste, [include the
following if appropriate] and is necessary to protect public
health, welfare or the environment.
Note: Language for enforcement waivers from other environmental
regulations will be worked out on a site specific basis.
[Include the following if appropriate] The State, EPA, or PRP
will undertake an additional remedial Investigation/feasibility
study to evaluate [describe scope of RI/FS]. If additional
remedial actions are determined to be necessary, a Negotiation
Decision Document or a Record of Decision will be prepared for
approval of the future remedial action.
Date
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
or
Regional Administrator
Attachments;
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Community Relations Responsiveness Summary
Settlement Document (Administrative Order or Consent Decree)
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
[Site Name]
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Describe the site in terms of:
- location, address (include maps, site plan as appropriate)
- area of site, topography, located in floodplain
- adjacent land uses
- location and distance to nearby populations
- general surface and ground water resources
- surface and subsurface features (eg. number and volume of
tanks, lagoons, structures, drums)
Note: This section should not exceed two paragraphs.
*
SITE HISTORY
Describe site history in terms of:
- how site was established
- period of operations
- history of ownership
- site uses over period of operation, (type of wastes
received, treatment/storage/disposal pratices)
- type of permits applied for and/or approved, permitting
authority
- history of releases
- previous response actions (eg. 311, immediate removal)
- previous enforcement activities
Note: This section should not exceed two paragraphs.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
Describe results of remedial investigation:
- describe quantity, types, and concentrations of hazardous
substances present (summarize in tables and figures)
- describe known or suspected risks from substances
- extent of contamination (lateral and vertical)
- describe surface and subsurface pathways of migration (eg.
leachability of contaminated soil, soil permeability, depth
to ground water)
- location and number of affected receptors (actual or
potential)
Note: This section should summarize only the information related
to the proposed remedy and maximize the use of maps and
figures.
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
-2-
ENFORCEMENT [Used when no negotiations with PRPs]
Describe potential current enforcement activities:
- potential responsible parties
- results of negotiations
- filed case
- recommendation to use Fund
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS [Use when negotiations with PRPs are proposed]
discuss PRP interest in undertaking the remedial actions
discuss the expectation for successful negotiations and
the recommended maximum duration of negotiations
describe the flexibility (if any) that the Region feels
is appropriate for negotiating"
analyze the technical differences between the cost-
effective remedy and remedies proposed by PRPs
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Describe if actions are source control or off-site measures
(40 CFR Part 300.68(e)(2) or (3))
Describe results of feasibility study:
- identify public health and environmental objectives (if
possible describe which objectives are for public health
protection and which are for environmental protection)
- list all alternatives considered (a no-action alternative
must be included)
- identify an on-site alternative that fully complies with
other appropriate environmental laws (eg. RCRA, TSCA)
- describe the alternative screening process (must be
consistent with 40 CFR Part 300.68(h)). Alternatives
screened generally do not need to be described separately
- briefly explain why alternatives were eliminated, during
screening: if no-action was eliminated provide justification
- describe detailed analysis of final alternatives (must be
consistent with 40 CFR Part 300.68(1)), discuss factors used
to evaluate effectiveness and results of evaluation
- list alternatives with cost estimates (capital, O&M and
present worth) for comparison with effectiveness evaluation
Mote: This section should briefly summarize the above information.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
- briefly describe the community's level and nature of
concerns or support for each alternative
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
- identify technical requirements of other environmental
laws and regulations that could apply to the final site
actions (eg. RCRA, TSCA, CWA, floodplain management)
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
- describe the alternative that would satisfy the appropriate
technical requirements (if an alternative was not developed
during the feasibility study one must be developed for this
analysis)
- use regulatory compliance alternative as a baseline- to
compare other alternatives
- if recommended alternative does not comply, describe the
differences (e.g., liner/leachate collection is not provided
for on-site containment)
Note: This section should briefly summarize the above information.
If a waiver for compliance with other environmental require-
ments is being requested explain the basis for approval.
Work closely with Headquarters on the use of waivers since
the policy is still under development.
Any regulatory determinations, waivers or findings that
the Regional Administrator is required to make should be
attached (e.g., alternative concentration limit for ground
water contamination in accordance with 40 CFR Part 264.94(b)
of RCRA regulations).
- describe key requirements that will be complied with (e.g.
RCRA ground water monitoring plan, floodplain assessment
(Executive Order 11988), PCB disposal requirements)
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
- reference 40 CFR Part 300.68(j) description of cost-
effectiveness
- describe how the recommended alternative meets the cost-
effectiveness requirement
- compare recommended alternative to other alternatives,
and explain why other alternatives are not cost-effective
(e.g., cost, reliability, less than adequate public health
protection)
- Prepare tabular summary of alternatives using attached samples
- discuss justification for Fund balancing, if appropriate
- summarize capital and O&M costs of alternative
- attach appropriate tables or figures describing alternative
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M)
- describe projected O&M activities required to ensure
effectiveness of remedy, include on- and off-site moni-
toring plans
- list estimated annual O&M costs and durations
- describe State's funding mechanism and identify the State
agency responsible for O&M (where the recommended remedy
includes permanent relocation, the relocation responsibilities
must be clearly delineated and the State must commit to its
responsibilities in its concurrence letter).
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
- include the recommended level of EPA funding and time
period for O&M activities (not to exceed 1 year after
the completion of construction)
SCHEDULE
List key milestones and dates for project implementation:
- Complete Enforcement Negotiations
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD)
- Award/Amend Cooperative Agreement for Design
- Award Superfund State Contract (and IAG) for Design
- Start Design
- Complete Design
- Award/Amend Cooperative Agreement for Construction
- Award/Amend Superfund State Contract (and IAG) for
Construction
- Start Construction
- Complete Construction
FUTURE ACTIONS
Describe future remedial activities that are required to complete
site response:
- additional RI/FS projects
- second operable unit (e.g. for ground water mitigation)
- long-term O&M to maintain effectiveness of remedy
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
[SITE NAME]
INTRODUCTION
The responsiveness summary documents for the public record:
Concerns and issues raised during remedial planning.
Comments raised during the comment period on the feasibility
study.
How EPA or the State considered and responded to these
concerns.
CONCERNS RAISED PRIOR TO THE FEASIBILITY STUDY COMMENT PERIOD
Briefly describe:
Major concerns and issues raised by State and local
officials, potential responsible parties, and citizens.
The level of concern over each of the major issues
should be discussed. Include the number of times a
concern was raised, the number of people raising the
concern and names of individuals or groups raising
concerns and issues when appropriate.
Activities conducted by EPA or the State to elicit
citizen input and to address specific concerns and
issues; for example, small group meeting, news conference,
and progress reports.
Changes in any remedial planning activities as a result
of concerns raised.
CONCERNS RAISED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD
Briefly describe comments on the feasibility study made by
local officials, potential responsible parties and citizens:
Categorize comments by major issue or topic addressed.
Summarize comments under the categories as completely
as possible. Do not be so brief that the essence is
lost. For example, "concern about health effects" is
not specific enough. Which health effect is the
community worried about?
Discuss the level of concern over each of the major
issues. Include how many times the comment was raised
and the number of people raising the concern. Include
names of individuals and groups raising concerns and
issues when appropriate.
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
- 2 -
Discuss when the comment period started and stopped.
Mention when,where, and level of attendance at public
meeting, if held.
RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY CONCERNS
Explain Agency response.
Note whether staff met with concerned citizens or
conducted other communication activities during the
comment period such as a public meeting or availability
of technical staff to respond to questions.
Document any modifications or changes in the remedial
alternative as a result of comments.
Give the reasons for rejecting the community's or
potential responsible party's preferred alternative if
the Agency's selected alternative is different. The
citation of "CERCLA" alone does not explain the Agency's
rationale. A more detailed explanation is required.
Document in detail any alternatives provided by the
public or potential responsible parties which are not
evaluated in the feasibility study.
Include any letters, reports, etc., received from
potentially responsible parties.
REMAINING. CONCERNS
Briefly explain:
Any areas of community concern that require Agency
attention during remedial design and construction.
How EPA or the State intends to resolve any outstanding
concerns.
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
FORMAT FOR BRIEFING THE REGIONAL [ASSISTANT] ADMINISTRATOR
RECORD OF DECISION
[SITE NAME]
PURPOSE
0 The purpose of this Record of Decision (ROD) is select
the appropriate remedial action at the [site name] that
is consistent with the requirements of CERCLA and the
NCP. The Regional [Assistant] Administrator has been
delegated the authority for that approval.
ISSUES [Discuss general issues that the RA or AA should be aware of]
0 [State and local officials and community interest and concerns]
0 [Federal facility or Federal generator]
8 [RCRA issues for on-site actions]
0 [State cost share, flood plain construction, new
technologies, other issues]
0 [RC or OGC concurrence or concerns]
Note: This section will be presented by Headquarters.
MAIN POINTS
0 [Brief summary of site history]
8 [Brief summary of site description]
8 [Summary of previous and current response actions]
0 [Enforcement status]
8 [Objectives of proposed RA]
0 [Discuss Tabular Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
including:]
[Alternatives and Costs]
[Public health, environmental, and technical considerations]
[Public comments]
[Recommended cost-effective alternative]
8 [Waivers from other environmental programs, if necessary]
Note: This section should summarize only the information
related to the proposed remedy.
-------
OSWER Directive 9340.2-01
0 [Future RA's needed to complete site cleanup]
0 [Summary charts and graphics - effective charts and
graphics include:]
1. Aerial photo showing key features.
2. Site map and/or areal photo showing
proposed actions.
3- Table of final alternatives listing the
alternatives, capital, O&M and present
worth, cost, and public health, environmental,
technical and community considerations
(see samples in Summary of Remedial
alternative Selections).
Note? This section will be presented by the Region.
NFXT STEPS
Action Date
0 RA or AA - OSWER approves ROD
0 [amend/award CA, SSC, IAG]
0 [sign PR]
0 [design remedy]
0 [implement remedy]
Note: This section will be presented by the Region.
Note: The Executive Summary should generally be limited to
3-5 pages, excluding charts and graphics.
------- |