United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
OHice of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
&EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9375.1-2A-b
TITLE:
APPENDIX B, ACTION MEMORANDUM GUIDANCE
12/4/85
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE: QERR
D FINAL
fi DRAFT
olAIUo: c — For review and comment
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
1 xvEPA
United Slates Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
| Originator Information
1 Name of Contact Person
Deborah Swichkow
Lead Office
00 OERR
D OSW
D OUST
D OWPE
Lj AA-OSWER
Mail Code
WH-B4RrI
Approved
Interim Directive Number
9375.1-2A-b
Telephone Number
3R2-2453
for Review
Signature of Office Director
fys
Date
(Title
APPENDIX R, ACTION MEMORANDUM GUIDANCE
[Summary of Directive
Hb-j G append 4-X-4HHS-- b-ee n provides
rfemedial
Project
-
Managers (RPM's) and other Regional staff in the development
of Action Memoranda. t* contains an annotated outline of an
Action Memorandum as well as a model of an enforcement status
sheet which is prepared as an attachment to the Action Memorandum
iType of
Directive /Manual. Policy Directive. Announcement, etc.)
Appendix to State Participation in Superfund
Remedial Program Manual
Status
D
m
&
Draft
Final
a
•rn
s
New
Revis
on
I Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)? piQ Yes | J No
I If "Yes" to Either Question, What Directive (number, title/
Supersedes Appendix R of 9375.l-
(Review Plan
I D AA-OSWER D OUST
1 Q OERR D OWPE
1 D OSW D Regions
Jnis Request Meets OSWER Directives System
"[Signature of Lead Office Directives Officer
ISignartJys of OSWER Directives Officer
LJ OECM LJ Other (Specify!
D OGC
D.OPPE
Format
Date
/thitz
Date
-------
12/18/85
APPENDIX B
ACTION MEMORANDUM GUIDANCE
-------
12/18/85
Replacement Page B-l
APPENDIX B
ACTION MEMORANDUM GUIDANCE
PURPOSE
This appendix has been provided to assist Remedial
Project Managers (RPMs) and other Regional staff in the
development of Action Memoranda.
BACKGROUND
An Action Memorandum is an optional EPA internal docu-
ment in which the Regional Administrator (RA) authorizes a
remedial planning project at one or more hazardous waste
sites. It clarifies any site-specific issues and sum-
marizes site background information, proposed community
relations and remedial activities, and the status of
enforcement actions at the site(s). In addition, Action
Memoranda recommend a course of action to be followed in
conducting remedial activities at the site(s). As such,
an Action Memorandum, is most appropriate the first time
trust fund expenditures occur for remedial activities at a
site.
Action Memoranda are developed after the completion of
the forward planning process, but prior to or simulta-
neously with the negotiation of an agreement to proceed
with remedial activities at one or more sites. Pre-
paration of the Action Memorandum is usually the responsi-
bility of the designated RPM. Necessary information
usually can be obtained from the Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP), community relations and
Regional enforcement staffs, and the State Project Officer
(SPO), if one has been selected. If the RA elects to use
an Action Memorandum for a project, the document should be
finalized and approved prior to the award of a Cooperative
Agreement, execution of a Memorandum of Understanding, or
EPA action upon a State letter of request.
Action Memorandum review and approval procedures will
vary, depending upon the requirements and organization of
individual Regions. Review by the Office of Regional
Counsel, however, is necessary to satisfy legal require-
ments .
B-l
-------
12/18/85
Replacement Page B-2
APPENDIX SUMMARY
For the use of RPMs, this appendix contains the fol-
lowing guidance:
An annotated outline of an Action Memorandum
A model of an enforcement status information
sheet, which should be prepared as an attachment
to the Action Memorandum.
This information is provided in the pages that follow.
B-2
-------
12/18/85
Replacement Page B-3
1. SUGGESTED ACTION MEMORANDUM FORMAT
I. HEADING
SUBJECT: Authorization to Proceed with Remedial
Planning Activities at the ABC Site,
City, State
FROM: Director, Regional Waste Management
Division
TO: Regional Administrator
II. PURPOSE
A. Basic Statement of Reediest: Briefly state
the general subactivities requested — reme-
dial investigation/feasibility study — and
the site location.
B. Lead Management Responsibility: For each
activity and subactivity included in the
Action Memorandum, identify (where the State
has expressed its intentions) whether EPA or
the State will take lead management respon-
sibility. If the State has opted to assume
the lead, identify the State agency that
will manage the remedial response.
III. BACKGROUND
A. Position on Priorities List: In one sen-
tence, state that the site is on the Na-
tional Priorities List and, if possible,
what priority the State has given remedial
activities at that particular site.
B. Physical Location of the Site: Name the
county (or parish), township, or incorpor-
ated unit in which the site is located and
give distances from nearest populated areas
and other points of reference.
C. Surrounding Areas: Describe the areas adja-
cent to the site, such as population cen-
ters; any areas protected by statute, such
B-3
-------
12/18/85
Replacement Page B-4
as parks and historic sites; sensitive eco-
systems; distances to sources of drinking
water; etc.
D. Site Setting/Description:
1. Physical Description of the Site -
Briefly outline the physical character-
istics of the site, such as size, pres-
ence of buildings or containment areas,
waste lagoons, etc.
2. General Character of the Site - Explain
past waste disposal practices at the
site. Indicate whether the (potential)
contamination is due to drums, bulk
liquids, contaminated soils, spills,
etc.
3. Waste Management - Describe any exist-
ing structures or measures that either
would mitigate or accelerate the re-
lease of any on-site materials (e.g., a
containment berm, site security, fenc-
ing, and similar measures).
E. Quantities and Types of Substances Present:
Identify, quantify, and briefly describe any
hazardous substances of critical concern.
To the extent possible, this should be done
in terms of waste categories, such as prior-
ity pollutants.
F. Evidence of Release; Note any contaminated
drinking water wells, either private or
municipal, and any evidence of ecosystem
damage. Indicate any releases to environ-
mental media. If any off-site monitoring
has been performed, relate the substances
identified to those found on-site and des-
cribe concentrations of off-site pollutants.
G. Potential Exposure of Public or Sensitive
Ecosystems: Briefly describe any indication
that the surrounding areas and residents may
be exposed to hazardous substances from the
site.
B-4
-------
12/18/85
Replacement Page B-5
H. Previous Actions to Abate Threat: Describe
. any privately or publicly sponsored activ-
ities, the organization that initiated them,
their results, and dates of occurrence.
Outline any monitoring, inspections, or
sampling performed at the site and briefly
summarize the results.
I. Current Actions to Abate Threat: Describe
any public or private activities that are
currently under way or planned and their
estimated costs and completion dates.
IV. ENFORCEMENT (see attachment)
V. COMMUNITY RELATIONS
A. Level of Citizen Concern: State whether the
level of citizen concern is high or low.
Briefly summarize complaints/allegations by
the general public that the site has had or
is having an adverse impact on health or
economic welfare. Note whether any citizen
groups have expressed concern about the site.
B. Community Involvement: Cite any history of
community involvement with the site, such as
circulating petitions for site action or
staging demonstrations about conditions at
the site.
C. Community Relations Program: Briefly out-
line the specific objectives of the commun-
ity relations program for the site. Explain
the status of the Community Relations Plan
(CRP) — that is, whether a plan has been or
is being prepared — and state that it will
be included in the agreement package.
High-light any community relations activ-
ities recommended prior to approval of the
final CRP.
VI, IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES (as necessary and
applicable)
A. Response Authority; In some instances, de-
cisions must be made in order to request
certain activities, such as justification of
B-5
-------
12/18/85
Replacement Page B-6
off-site disposal of hazardous substances
under CERCLA section 101(24). Briefly ex-
plain any such determination.
B. Cost-Sharing; If the State has not yet se-
cured funding to meet its cost-sharing obli-
gation, if any, explain the circumstances
and the manner in which the State plans to
obtain its share of remedial costs.
C. Other: Describe such policy issues as the
question of division of responsibilities
among Federal and/or State agencies, unre-
solved questions regarding agreement with
the State or local agencies over recommended
remedial actions, unresolved determinations
of public ownership and appropriate cost
share, and similar issues. Make the des-
cription brief and highlight efforts being
taken to resolve these issues.
VII. PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Statement
1. Objectives of the Project - Briefly
describe the proposed project and the
expected results. Explain generic sub-
activities such as a remedial investi-
gation/feasibility study (for example,
a remedial investigation would deter-
mine the degree of contamination on the
\. site arid would collect data sufficient
to evaluate source control measures).
2. General Description of the Pathways to
be Evaluated - Describe media affecting
public health, such as aquifers, air
emissions, and surface waters.
B. Costs: Present, in budget format, the total
estimated costs for the project as a whole
and for each activity and subactivity, and
show estimated State and Federal cost
shares, if applicable. Estimates will be
the "best estimates" for planning subactivi-
ties. Support cost estimates by citing
B-6
-------
12/18/85
Replacement Page B-7
those in the SCAP, when available. Include
community relations costs in all cost esti-
mates shown.
C. Project Schedule: Identify the estimated .
duration of each activity from information
contained in the SCAP and the Site Manage-
ment Plan.
D. State Share: Identify the percentage of the
costs that the State will be required to
provide and any credit that the State claims,
E. State Assurances: Acknowledge that the
State is aware of any CERCLA section
104(c)(3) assurances required and also is
aware of its other responsibilities for the
project.
VIII. KECOMMENDATION
Conclude with a statement (from the Division
Director to the Regional Administrator) recom-
mending approval of the activities requested and
acknowledging that the request has been coordin-
ated with the appropriate Headquarters and Re-
gional offices.
Make provision for indicating approval of the
request, as follows:
Approve
Disapprove
Date
B-7
-------
12/18/85
Replacement Page B-8
2. MODEL ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SHEET
ACTION MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT
ABC Site
City, State
ENFORCEMENT - CONFIDENTIAL
Enforcement status information should be included as a
separate attachment to the Action Memorandum. This infor-
mation should be completed by the Office of Regional Coun-
sel with input from the Headquarters Office of Waste Pro-
grams Enforcement -and State attorneys, if necessary. The
attachment should contain the following information, as
appropriate.
A. Potential Responsible Parties: Present a general
description of the number and types of potential-
ly responsible parties (i.e., generators,
transporters, and owners or operators). If a
site has one or two primary responsible parties,
name them. If a search for potentially responsi-
ble parties has been completed, summarize the
results and estimate the solvency of the major
parties identified.
B. Enforcement Strategy: Summarize the enforcement
strategy for notifying, negotiating with, and
instituting litigation against responsible par-
ties. Include an explanation of whether the
State or Federal enforcement attorneys (1) are
not going to litigate, (2) are actively pursuing
litigation, or (3) have decided to postpone
litigation.
C. Previous Enforcement Actions: Describe any pre-
vious State or Federal enforcement actions, giv-
ing the dates, types of legal actions taken, and
outcomes.
D. Enforcement Authority: If litigation is proceed-
ing or is contemplated, identify the statutory
authority for litigation (e.g., RCRA section
7003, CERCLA)
B-8
-------
12/18/85
Replacement Page B-9
E. Probability of Success: Evaluate the probability
of timely remedial actions resulting from
litigation.
F. Status of Negotiations: State whether negotia-
tions with responsible parties are under way. if
so, describe the activities being discussed.
G. Recommendation: Outline the course of action
recommended by the Regional enforcement at-
torneys, either exclusively pursuing Federally
funded remedial activities or simultaneously sup-
porting remedial and enforcement actions.
B-9
-------
12/20/85
Revised
APPENDIX E
MODEL STATEMENT OF WORK FOR A STATE-LEAD
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-l
APPENDIX E
MODEL STATEMENT OF WORK FOR A STATE-LEAD
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT
PURPOSE
This appendix has been provided to assist Remedial
Project Managers (RPMs) and State Project Officers (SPOs)
in developing a statement of work (SOW) for State-
conducted program and enforcement remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS) projects. It is intended only
to present a topic outline of an RI/FS. A more detailed
description of this process can be found in the documents
"Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA," Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), June 1985, and
"Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA", OERR,
June 1985.
BACKGROUND
A SOW describes remedial activities to be carried out
under the terms of a Cooperative Agreement or EPA-lead
remedial response agreement. The model SOW provided .in
this appendix identifies the tasks reguired to complete a
State-lead RI/FS, a remedial planning project usually un-
dertaken as the first phase of remedial response at a
site. It also highlights the additional information re-
guired for State-lead enforcement RI/FS projects.
Development of a SOW for remedial activities is one
step in the preparation of a Cooperative Agreement appli-
cation or an EPA-lead remedial response agreement. When
remedial planning will be done under an EPA-lead remedial
response agreement, the SOW will normally be prepared by
an EPA remedial contractor prior to the initiation of the
RI. The model SOW presented in this appendix can be used
as a guide in developing a SOW for State-lead program or
enforcement RI/FS projects in individual Cooperative
Agreement or multi-site Cooperative Agreement (MSCA) ap-
plications. In some cases, the SOW may be developed dur-
ing forward planning (see Chapter II of this manual).
States may obtain the services of a reputable archi-
tectural/engineering (A/E) firm to conduct the RI/FS. In
doing so, the State must comply with EPA's regulation
governing procurement under assistance agreements, 40 CFR
Part 33. This regulation provides two primary methods for
obtaining engineering services: the standard method of
E-l
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-2
competitive negotiation and the optional method of com-
petitive negotiation. Either may be used under Superfund
Cooperative Agreements. The standard method involves.
selection of an engineering firm, taking into account both
its technical capabilities and the proposed cost to com-
plete the work. Selection using the optional method is
based primarily on the firm's technical capabilities.
States also can use the formal advertising procurement
method (40 CFR 33.405) for obtaining an A/E firm. More
detailed information on Superfund procurement retirements
and procedures can be found in Volume II of this manual.
If the State chooses to use in-house personnel to con-
duct the work under the RI/FS, this is called force ac-
counting. When force account costs exceed $25,000, the
State must obtain written authorization from the RPM to
use State employees or equipment for construction, for
construction-related activities, or for repairs or im-
provements to a facility. In this case, the State must
demonstrate to EPA that State employees can complete the
work as competently as, and more economically than, con-
tractors, or that an emergency circumstance makes the use
of force account necessary.
APPENDIX SUMMARY
This appendix contains a model SOW for a State-lead
program or enforcement RI/FS, for use in a CERCLA Coopera-
tive Agreement application. With appropriate modifica-
tions, it also can be used on a case-by-case basis in pre-
paring MSCA applications and in developing contractor-
related RI/FS procurements at various sites on the
National Priorities List. Additional information on
State-lead enforcement RI/FS SOWs is provided on page E-21
and also is referenced in the appropriate RI/FS tasks.
E-2
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-3
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
MODEL STATEMENT OF WORK
PURPOSE
The purpose of this remedial investigation is to de-
termine the nature and extent of the problem at the site
and to gather all necessary data to support the feasibil-
ity study. The State must ensure that all A/E related
personnel, materials, and services necessary for, of inci-
dental to, performing the remedial investigation at [spe-
cific site], an uncontrolled hazardous waste site, are
provided, or must procure the services of an engineer,
consistent with 40 CFR Part 33, to perform the activities
described below.
SCOPE
The remedial investigation consists of eight tasks*:
Task 1 - Contractor Procurement
Task 2 - Description of Current Situation
Task 3 - Plans and Management
Task 4 - Site Investigation
Task 5 - Site Investigation Analysis
Task 6 - Laboratory and Bench-Scale Studies
Task 7 - Reports
Task 8 - Community Relations Support.
TASK 1 - CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT
Prepare contractor procurement documents and award a
subagreement to secure the services necessary to conduct
the remedial investigation and feasibility study. EPA's
regulation governing procurement, 40 CFR Part 33, provides
two primary methods of competitive negotiation for obtain-
ing contractor services: the standard method, based on
competitive technical capabilities and proposed project
costs, and the optional method, based primarily on techni-
cal capabilities.
The document Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under
CERCLA, OERR, June 1985, should be consulted for addi-
tional information on the tasks listed.
E-3
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-4
TASK 2 - DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT SITUATION
Describe the background information pertinent to the
site and its problems and outline the purpose for the re-
medial investigation at the site. The data gathered dur-
ing any previous investigations or inspections and other
relevant data, should be used.
This task may be conducted concurrently with Task 3,
development of the work plan.
a. Site Background
Prepare a summary of the Regional location, per-
tinent area boundary features, and general site
physiography, hydrology, and geology. Define the
total area of the site and the general nature of
the problem, including pertinent history relative
to the use of the site for hazardous waste
disposal.
b. Nature and Extent of Problem
Prepare a summary of the actual and potential
on-site and off-site health and environmental
effects. This may include, but is not limited
to, the types, physical states, and amounts of
the hazardous substances; the existence and con-
ditions of drums, landfills, and lagoons [substi-
tute site-specific features if different]; af-
fected media and pathways of exposure; contamin-
ated releases such as leachate or runoff; and any
human exposure. Emphasis should be placed on
describing the threat or potential threat to pub-
lic health and the environment.
c. History of Response Actions
Prepare a summary of any previous response ac-
tions conducted by local, State, Federal, or pri-
vate parties, including the site inspection and
other technical reports, and their results. This
summary should address any enforcement activities
undertaken to identify responsible parties, com-
pel private cleanup, and recover costs. A list
of reference documents and their locations shall
be included. (The scope of the remedial investi-
gation should be developed to address the prob-
lems and questions that have resulted from previ-
ous work at the site.)
E-4
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-5
d. Site Visit
Conduct an initial site visit to become familiar
with site topography, access routes, and proxim-
ity of receptors to possible contamination, and
to collect data for preparation of the site
safety plan. The visit should be used to verify
the site information developed under this Task.
e. Define Boundary Conditions
Establish site boundary conditions to limit the
areas of remedial investigations. The boundary
conditions should be set so that subsequent in-
vestigations will cover the contaminated media in
sufficient detail to support following activities
(e.g., the feasibility study). The boundary con-
ditions also may be used to identify boundaries
for site access control and site security. (If
not in existence, installation of a fence or
other security measures should be considered.)
f. Site Map
Prepare a site map showing all wetlands, flood-
plains, water features, drainage patterns, tanks,
buildings, utilities, paved areas, easements,
rights-of-way, and other features. The site map
and all topographical surveys should be of suffi-
cient detail and accuracy to locate and report
all existing and future work performed at the
site. (Permanent baseline monuments, bench
marks, and reference grid tied into any existing
reference system (i.e., State or USGS) should be
considered as an option.)
g. Site Office
If agreed to by EPA and the State, establish a
temporary site office to support site work.
TASK 3 - PLANS AND MANAGEMENT
Prepare all necessary plans for the remedial investi-
gation. The work plan should include a detailed discus-
sion of the technical approach, budget, personnel require-
ments, and schedules, as well as the following:
E-5
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-6
a. Sampling Plan
Prepare a Sampling Plan to address all field ac-
tivities necessary to obtain additional site
data. The plan will contain a statement of
sampling objectives; specification of equipment,
analyses of interest, sample types, and sample
locations and frequency; and schedule. Consider
use of field screening techniques to screen.out
samples that do not require off-site laboratory
analysis. The plan also will include a Quality
Assurance and Quality Control Plan (QA/QC) with
documentation requirements and estimates of costs
and labor. The plan must address all levels of
the investigation as well as all types of in-
vestigations conducted (e.g., waste characteriza-
tion, hydrogeologic, soils and sediments, air,
and surface water). The plan will identify po-
tential remedial technologies and associated data
that may be needed to evaluate alternatives for
the feasibility study.
b. Health and Safety Plan
Prepare a Health and Safety Plan to address haz-
ards that the investigation activities may pre-
sent to the investigation team and to the sur-
rounding community. The plan should address all
applicable regulatory requirements and should
detail personnel.responsibilities, protective
equipment, procedures and protocols, decontamina-
tion, training, and medical surveillance. The
plan should identify problems or hazards that may
be encountered and their solutions. Procedures
for protecting third parties, such as visitors or
the surrounding community, also will be provided.
c. Data Management Plan
Develop and initiate a Data Management Plan to
document and track investigation data and re-
sults. This plan should identify and describe
laboratory and data documentation materials and
procedures, project file requirements, and
project-related progress and financial reporting
procedures and documents.
E-6
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-7
d. Community Relations Plan
Prepare a plan, based on on-site discussions, for
the dissemination to the public of information
regarding investigation activities and results.
Opportunities for comment and input by citizen,
community, and other groups also must be identi-
fied and incorporated into the plan. Staffing
and budget requirements for implementation also
must be included. (Not required if Community
Relations Plan already has been prepared.)
TASK 4 - SITE INVESTIGATION
Conduct only those investigations necessary to charac-
terize the site and its actual or potential hazard to pub-
lic health and the environment. The investigations should
result in data of adequate technical content to support
the development and evaluation of remedial alternatives
during the feasibility study. Investigation activities
will focus on problem definition and the collection of
data to support the screening of remedial technologies,
alternative development and screening, and detailed evalu-
ation of alternatives.
The site investigation activities will follow the
plans developed in Task 3. All sample analyses will be
conducted at laboratories following EPA protocols or their
equivalents. Strict chain-of-custody procedures will be
followed and all samples will be located on the site map
(and grid system) established under Tasks 2 and 3.
a. Waste Characterization
Conduct a sampling and analysis program to char-
acterize all materials of interest at the site.
These materials should include wastes stored
above or below ground in tanks, drums, lagoons,
piles, or other structures.
Hydroqeologic Investigation
(Generally limited to investigations for off-site
migration.) Conduct a program to determine the
presence and potential extent of ground water
contamination (and to evaluate the suitability of
the site for on-site waste containment). [Iden-
tify specific acruifer to be studied.] Efforts
should begin with a survey of previous hydrogeo-
logic studies and other existing data. The sur-
vey should address the degree of hazard, the
E-7
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-8
mobility of pollutants considered (from Waste
Characterization), the soils' attenuation capac-
ity and mechanisms, discharge/recharge areas,
regional flow directions and quality, and effects
of any pumping alternatives that are developed,
if applicable. Such information may be available
from the United States Geological Survey (USGS),
the Soil Conservation Service, and local well
drillers. An accompanying sampling program
should determine the horizontal and vertical dis-
tribution of contaminants and predict the long-
term disposition of contaminants.
c. Soils and Sediments Investigation
Conduct a program to determine the location and
extent of contamination of surface and subsurface
soils and sediments [identify specific areas to
be studied]. This process may overlap with cer-
tain aspects of the hydrogeologic study (e.g.,
characteristics of soil strata are relevant both
to the transport of contaminants by ground water
and to the location of contaminants in the soil;
cores from ground water monitoring wells may
serve as soil samples). A survey of existing
data on soils and sediments may be useful. The
horizontal and vertical extent of contaminated
soils and sediments should be determined. Infor-
mation on local background levels, degree of haz-
. ard, location of samples, techniques utilized,
and methods of analysis should be included. The
investigation should identify the locations and
probable quantities of subsurface wastes, such as
buried drums, through the use of appropriate geo-
physical methods.
d. Surface Water Investigation
Conduct a program to determine the extent of con-
tamination of [identify specific water bodies].
This process may overlap with the soils and sedi-
ments investigation; data from stream or lake
sediments sampled may be relevant to surface
water quality. A survey of existing data on sur-
face water flow quantity and quality may be a
useful first step, particularly information on
local background levels, location and frequency
of samples, sampling techniques, and methods of
analysis.
E-8
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-9
Air Investigation.
Conduct a program to determine the extent of at-
mospheric contamination. The program should ad-
dress the tendency of substances (identified
through Waste Characterization) to enter the at-
mosphere, local wind patterns, and the degree of
hazard.
[Note: Other categories of investigations may be
needed for specialized site problems. These could include
biological and radiological investigations.]
TASK 5 - SITE INVESTIGATION ANALYSIS
Prepare a thorough analysis and summary of all site
investigations and their results. The objective of this
task is to ensure that the investigation data are suffici-
ent in quality (e.g., QA/QC procedures have been followed)
and quantity to support the feasibility study.
The results and data from all site investigations must
be organized and presented logically so that the relation-
ships between site investigations for each medium are ap-
parent. Analyze all site investigation data and develop a
summary of the types and extent of contamination at the
site. The summary should describe the quantities and con-
centrations of specific chemicals at the site and ambient
levels surrounding the site. Describe the number, loca-
tions, and types of nearby populations and activities, and
pathways that may result in an actual or potential threat
to public health, welfare, or the environment. [Specify
whether a contamination, public health, and/or environmen-
tal assessment is to be conducted.]
TASK 6 - LABORATORY AND BENCH-SCALE STUDIES
[Note: The following applies when additional studies
are necessary to evaluate remedial alternatives fully.
The paragraphs may be modified to meet specific project
conditions.]
Conduct laboratory and/or bench-scale studies to de-
termine the applicability of remedial technologies to site
conditions and problems. Analyze the technologies, based
on literature review, vendor contacts, and past experi-
ence, to determine the testing requirements.
Develop a testing plan identifying the type(s) and
goal(s) of the study(ies), the level(s) of effort needed,
and data management and interpretation guidelines for sub-
E-9 .
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-io
mission to [specify EPA and State recipients] for review
and approval.
Upon completion of the testing, evaluate the testing
results to assess the technologies with respect to the
site-specific questions identified in the test plan.
Scale up those technologies selected based on testing re-
sults.
Prepare a report summarizing the testing program and
its results, both positive and negative.
TASK 7 - REPORTS
a. Progress Reporting Requirements
[Note: The following paragraph applies when the
SOW is being used to procure the services of an
A/E firm. Typical requirements are described but
may be modified based on the size and complexity
of the specific project. A Cooperative Agreement
requires a State to report quarterly to EPA, con-
sistent with 40 CFR Part 30 and Appendix F of
this manual.]
Monthly reports shall be prepared by the State's
contractor to describe the technical and finan-
cial progress of the project. These reports
should discuss the following items:
1. Identification of site and activity
2. Status of work at the site and progress
to date
3. Percentage of completion and schedule
status
4. Difficulties encountered during the
reporting period
5. Actions being taken to rectify problems
6. Activities planned for the next month
7. Changes in personnel
8. Actual expenditures (including fee) and
direct labor hours expended for this
period
E-10
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-ll
9. Cumulative expenditures (including fee)
and cumulative direct labor hours
10. Projection of expenditures for complet-
ing the project, including an explana-
tion of any significant variation from
the forecasted target
11. A graphic representation of proposed
versus actual expenditures (plus fee)
and comparison of actual versus target
direct labor hours. A projection to
completion will be made for both.
The monthly progress report will list target and
actual completion dates for each element of ac-
tivity, including project completion, and will
provide an explanation of any deviation from the
milestones in the work plan. Further information
on State contractor reporting can be found in
Volume II of this manual.
b. Final Report
Prepare a final report covering the remedial in-
vestigation and submit [specify number and dis-
tribution] copies to [specify EPA and State re-
cipients, as appropriate]. The report shall in-
clude the results of Tasks 1 through 6, and
should include additional information in appen-
dices. The report shall be structured to enable
the reader to cross-reference with ease. The
State should transmit a copy of this report to
EPA.
TASK 8 - COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUPPORT
[Note: The following paragraph applies when community
relations support is conducted under the work covered in
this SOW (e.g., under a Cooperative Agreement). These
paragraphs may be modified to meet specific site or proj-
ect conditions.]
The State may require its contractor to furnish the
personnel, services, materials, and equipment to undertake
a community relations program. Although this may be a
limited program, community relations must be integrated
closely with all remedial response activities. The objec-
tives of this effort are to achieve community understand-
ing of the actions taken and to obtain community input and
support prior to selection of the remedial alternative(s).
E-ll
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-12
Community relations support should include, but may
not be limited to, the following:
Revisions or additions to community relations
plans, including definition of community rela-
tions program needs for each remedial activity
Analysis of community attitudes toward the pro-
posed actions
Preparation and dissemination of news releases,
fact sheets, slide shows, exhibits, and other
audio-visual materials designed to apprise the
community of current or proposed actions
Establishment of a community information center
Arrangements of briefings, press conferences,
workshops, and public and other informal meetings
Assessment of the successes and failures of the
community relations program to date
Preparation of reports and participation in pub-
lic meetings, project review meetings, and other
meetings as necessary to the normal progress of
the work
Solicitation, selection, and approval of subcon-
tractors, if needed.
All community relations activities conducted by the State
must be consistent with Superfund community relations
policy, as stated in the "Guidance for Implementing the
Superfund Program" and Superfund Community Relations Hand-
book and Appendix K of this manual.
E-12
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-13
FEASIBILITY STUDY
MODEL STATEMENT OF WORK
PURPOSE
The purpose of this feasibility study is to develop
and evaluate remedial alternatives for [specific site].
SCOPE
The feasibility study consists of eight tasks*:
Task 9 - Description of Proposed Response
Task 10 - Preliminary Remedial Technologies
Task 11 - Development of Alternatives
Task 12 - Initial Screening of Alternatives
Task 13 - Evaluation of the Alternatives
Task 14 - Preliminary Report
Task 15 - Final Report
Task 16 - Additional Requirements.
A work plan that includes a detailed technical ap-
proach, a budget, personnel requirements, and schedules
will be submitted for the proposed feasibility study.
TASK 9 - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RESPONSE
Information on the site background, the nature and
extent of the problem, and previous response activities
presented in Task 2 of the remedial investigation may be
incorporated by reference. Any changes to the original
project scope described in the Task 2 description should
be discussed and justified based on the results of the
remedial investigation.
Following this summary of the current situation, a
site-specific statement of purpose for the response, based
on the results of the remedial investigation, should be
presented. The statement of purpose should identify the
actual or potential exposure pathways that should be ad-
dressed by remedial alternatives.
The document Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA, OERR, June 1985, should be consulted for addi-
tional information on the tasks listed.
E-13
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-14
TASK 10 - PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Based on the site-specific problems and statement of
purpose identified in Task 9, develop a master list of
potentially feasible technologies. These -technologies
will include both on-site and management of off-site mi-
gration remedies, depending on site problems. The master
list will be screened based on site conditions, waste
characteristics, and technical retirements, to eliminate
or modify those technologies that may prove extremely dif-
ficult to implement, will require unreasonable time
periods, or will rely on insufficiently developed technol-
ogy. (The results of this task may be requested.separ-
ately as a Remedial Options Negotiation Document by the
State or EPA.)
TASK 11 - DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
Based on the results of the remedial investigation and
consideration of preliminary remedial technologies
(Task 10), develop a limited number of alternatives for
source control or management of off-site migration re-
medial actions, or both, on the basis of objectives estab-
lished for the response.
a. Establishment of Remedial Response Objectives
Establish site-specific objectives for the re-
sponse. These objectives will be based on public
health and environmental concerns, the descrip-
tion of the current situation (from Task 2), in-
formation gathered during the remedial investiga-
tion, section 300.68 of the National Contingency
Plan (NCP), EPA's guidance, and the requirements
of any other applicable EPA, Federal, and State
environmental standards, guidance, and advisories
as defined under EPA's CERCLA compliance policy.
Objectives for source control measures should be
developed to prevent or significantly minimize
migration of contamination from the site. Objec-
tives for management of off-site migration mea-
sures should prevent or minimize impacts of con-
tamination that has migrated from the site. Pre-
liminary cleanup objectives will be developed in
consultation with EPA and the State.
b. Identification of Remedial Alternatives
Develop alternatives to incorporate remedial
technologies (from Task 10), response objectives,
and other appropriate considerations into a
E-14
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-15
comprehensive, site-specific approach.
Alternatives developed should include the
following (as appropriate):
Alternatives for off-site treatment or
disposal, as appropriate
Alternatives which attain applicable
and/or relevant and appropriate Federal
public health or environmental standards
Alternatives which exceed applicable
and/or relevant and appropriate public
health or environmental standards
Alternatives which do not attain appli-
cable and/or relevant and appropriate
public health or environmental stand-
ards but will reduce the likelihood of
present or future threat from the
hazardous substances. This must
include an alternative which closely
approaches the level of protection
provided by the applicable or relevant
standards
No action.
There may be overlap among the alternatives de-
veloped. Further, alternatives outside of these
categories also may be developed, such as non-
cleanup alternatives (e.g., alternative water
supply, relocation). The alternatives shall be
developed in close consultation with EPA and the
State. Document the rationale for excluding any
technologies identified in Task 10 as part of the
development of alternatives.
TASK 12 - INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives developed in Task 11 will be screened
to eliminate those that are clea'rly infeasible or inappro-
priate, prior to undertaking detailed evaluations of the
remaining alternatives.
Considerations To Be Used in Initial Screening
Three broad considerations must be used as a basis for
the initial screening: cost, public health, and the
environment. More specifically, the following factors
must be considered:
E-15
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-16
1. Environmental Protection. Only those alterna-
tives that satisfy the response objectives and
contribute substantially to the protection of
public health, welfare, or the environment will
be considered further. Source control alterna-
tives will achieve adequate control of source
materials. Management of off-site migration al-
ternatives will minimize or mitigate the threat
of harm to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
2. Environmental Effects. Alternatives posing sig-
nificant adverse environmental effects will be
excluded.
3. Technical Feasibility. Technologies that may
prove extremely difficult to implement, will not
achieve the remedial objectives in a reasonable
time, period, or will rely upon unproven technol-
ogy should be modified or eliminated.
4. Cost. An alternative whose cost far exceeds that
of other alternatives usually will be .eliminated
unless other significant benefits also may be
realized. Total costs will include the cost of
implementing the alternatives and the cost of
operation and maintenance.
The cost screening will be conducted only after
the environmental and public health screenings
have been performed.
TASK 13 - EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative reme-
dies that pass the initial screening in Task 12. Alterna-
tive evaluation will be preceded by detailed development
of the remaining alternatives.
a. Technical Analysis
Perform a Technical Analysis that will, as a
minimum:
1. Describe appropriate treatment, storage, and
disposal technologies.
2. Discuss how the alternative does (or does
not) comply with specific requirements of
other environmental programs. When an al-
ternative does not comply, discuss how the
E-16
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-17
alternative prevents or minimizes the migra-
tion of wastes and public health or environ-
mental affects and describe special design
needs that could be implemented to achieve
compliance.
3. Outline operation, maintenance, and monitor-
ing requirements of the remedy.
4. Identify and review potential off-site
facilities to ensure compliance with appli-
cable Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and other EPA environmental.program
requirements, both current and proposed.
Potential disposal facilities should be
evaluated to determine whether off-site man-
agement of site wastes could result in a
potential for a future release from the dis-
posal facility.
5. Identify temporary storage requirements,
off-site disposal needs, and transportation
plans.
6. Describe whether the alternative results in
permanent treatment or destruction of the
wastes, and, if not, the potential for fu-
ture release to the environment.
7. Outline safety requirements for remedial
implementation (including both on-site and
off-site health and safety considerations).
8. Describe how the alternative could be phased
into individual operable units. The de-
scription should include a discussion of how
various operable units of the total remedy
could be implemented individually or in
groups, resulting in a significant improve-
ment to the environment or savings in cost.
9. Describe special engineering requirements of
the remedy or site preparation .
considerations.
E-17
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-18
b. Environmental Analysis
Perform an Environmental Assessment (EA) for each
alternative. The EA should focus on the site
problems and pathways of contamination actually
addressed.by each alternative. The EA for each
. alternative will include, at a minimum, an evalu-
ation of beneficial effects of the response, ad-
verse effects of the response, and an analysis of
measures to mitigate adverse effects. The no-
action alternative will be evaluated fully to
describe the current site situation and antici-
pated environmental conditions if no actions are
taken. The no-action alternative will serve as
the baseline for the analysis.
c. Public Health Analysis
Assess each alternative in terms of the extent to
which it mitigates long-term exposure to any
residual contamination and protects public health
.both during and after completion of the remedial
action. The assessment will describe the levels
and characterizations of contaminants on-site,
potential exposure routes, and potentially af-
fected populations. The effect of "no action"
should be described in terms of short-term ef-
fects (e.g., lagoon failure), long-term exposure
to hazardous substances, and resulting public
health impacts. Each remedial alternative will
be evaluated to determine the level of exposure
to contaminants and the reduction over time. The
relative reduction in public health impacts for
each alternative will be compared to the no-
action level. For remedial measures affecting
the management of off-site migration, the rela-
tive reduction in impact will be determined by
comparing residual levels of each alternative
with existing criteria, standards, or guidelines
acceptable to EPA. For source control measures
or when criteria, standards, or guidelines are
not available, the comparison should be based on
the relative effectiveness of technologies. The
no-action alternative will serve as the baseline
for the analysis.
E-18
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-19
Institutional Analysis
Evaluate each alternative based on relevant in-
stitutional needs. Specifically, assess regula-
tory requirements, permits, community relations,
and participating agency coordination.
e. Cost Analysis
Evaluate the cost of e'ach feasible remedial ac-
tion alternative (and for each phase or segment
of the alternative). Present the cost as a pres-
ent worth cost and will include the total cost of
implementing the alternative and the annual oper-
ating and maintenance costs. Include both.mone-
tary costs and associated non-monetary costs will
be included. Provide a distribution of costs
over time.
f. Evaluation of Cost-Effective Alternatives
Compare alternatives using technical, environmen-
tal, and economic criteria. At a minimum, use
the following areas to compare alternatives:
1. Present Worth of Total Costs. The net pres-
ent value of capital and operating and
maintenance costs must be presented.
2. Health Information. For the no-action al-
ternative, EPA prefers a quantitative state-
ment including a range estimate of maximum
individual risks. Where quantification is
. not possible, a qualitative analysis may
suffice. For source control options, a
quantitative risk assessment is not re-
quired. For management of migration mea-
sures, present a quantitative risk assess-
ment including a range estimate of maximum
individual risks.
3. Environmental Effects. Summarize only the
most important effects or impacts. Refer-
ence can be made to supplemental information
arrayed in a separate table, if necessary.
4. Technical Aspects of the Remedial Alterna-
tives. Clearly delineate the technical as-
pects of each remedial alternative relative
to the others. This assessment will be
based on the expertise of the State and/or
E-19
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-20
its contractor in identifying those remedial
actions that are viable cleanup options.
5. Information on the Extent to Which Remedial
Alternatives Meet the Technical Requirements
and Environmental Standards of Applicable
Environmental Regulations. Array this in-
formation so that differences in how reme-
dial alternatives satisfy such standards are
readily apparent. The general types of
standards that may be applicable at the site
include:
a. RCRA design and operating standards
b. Drinking water standards and criteria.
6. Information on Community Effects. Provide
information that explains the extent to
which implementation of a remedial alterna-
tive disrupts the community (e.g., traffic,
temporary health risks, and relocation).
7. Other Factors. This category of information
would include such things as institutional
factors that may inhibit implementing a re-
medial alternative and any other site-
specific factors identified in the course of
the detailed analysis that may influence
which alternative is eventually selected.
TASK 14 - PRELIMINARY REPORT
Prepare a preliminary report presenting the results of
Tasks 9 through 13. Transmit the report to EPA for review
and comment before a final report is prepared and a remedy
is selected. [EPA and the State will review and select a
remedial alternative.]
TASK 15 - FINAL REPORT
Prepare a final report for submission to EPA and the
State. The report will include the results of Tasks 9
through 13, and should include any supplemental informa-
tion in appendices. This report will include a respon-
siveness summary on public comments received, as well as a
description of the proposed remedy. Transmit the Final
Report to EPA.
TASK 16 - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
[Specified based on site-specific issues.]
E-20
-------
12/20/85
Revised Page E-21
REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE-LEAD ENFORCEMENT RI/FS SOWs
Requirements, major tasks, and components for State-
lead program and enforcement RI/FS SOWs are essentially
the same. However, a few additional steps are necessary,
as are several changes in how tasks are implemented for
State-lead enforcement RI/FSs to support enforcement ac-
tions that the State will undertake. These are:
Add Task 3d (RI) - Schedule for Future Enforce-
ment Action. Establish a schedule of the State's
intended enforcement activities. This must be
done before field work can begin.
To Task 4a (RI) - Waste Characterization, add:
The sampling plan shall describe the techniques
that will be employed to connect potentially re-
sponsible parties with wastes located at the
site." These techniques may include, but are not
limited to, identifying company names, trade-
marks, or registered brand names on drums or
tanks; investigating any other identifying fea-
tures of the waste; cataloging such information;
and maintaining evidentary files sufficient to
support future litigation.
Under Task 12 (FS) - Initial Screening of Alter-
natives, delete 3. Cost as a factor to be consi-
dered as a basis for initial screening.
Under Task 13 (FS) - Evaluation of Alternatives,
all work must be performed as described. How-
ever, since the Fund balancing provisions of
CERCLA section 104(c)(3) do not apply, the effec-
tiveness of all remedies must be considered, re-
gardless of cost.
Add Task 14a (FS) - Notice Letters: Prepare let-
ters notifying potentially responsible parties of
their responsibility for site wastes under CERCLA
section 106 and/or appropriate State law. These
must be sent to potential responsible parties no
later than at the completion of the preliminary
feasibility study report.
E-21
------- |