3 EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
TITLE:
9355.0-19
Interim Guidance on Supertund
Selection of Remedy
APPROVAL DATE: December 24, 1986
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 24, 1986
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agencv 1 . Directive Number
'oEPA Washington. DC 20460 9355.0-19
OSWER Directive Initiation Reauest
2. Originator Information
!1Iame of ~n~ct Per~ 1~~~8E I Office Telephone Number
" e sy aw OERRi HSCD (202) 382-3304
3. Title ."
Interim Guidance on Superfund Selection of Remedy
4. Summary of Directive (Include brief stlltement of purpose)
Provides interim guidance regarding implementation of SARA
cleanup standards provisions. Highlighting new requirements
and emphasis in the RI/FS and ROD process.
5. Keywor~tJperfund, CERCLA, Reauthoriza tion Implementation, Remedial, SARA
6a. Does this Directive SuperSede Previous Directive(sl1 U Ves [3 No What directive (number. title)
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(sl1 0 Ves []. No What Directive (numMr. title)
7.. Draft Level
~ A - Signed by AA/DAA 0 B - Signed by Office Director 0 C - For Review & Comment 0 In Development
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format
8. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator Date
:,~_. O~ /:1/3D/8'(
.. "7
9. Name and Titltf'of Approving Official Date
J. Winston Porter, AA/OSWER 12/24/86
OSWER OSWER OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
~
-------
~~tO ST~....
~+, :~;s.
'; ft' \
~~S~
'~"'''' .l
,.~( PR01~(j
. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D,C, 20460
DE& 21-
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
9355.0-19
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Int~):'i.m Guid,nce _.on Superfund Selection of Remedy
J. Lwfr;'~o n) ~~iSr
Assistant Administrator
SUBJECT:
TO:
Regional Administrators, Regions I - X
Regional Counsel, Regions I - X
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, and VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedi~l Response Division
Region II .
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III and VI
Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Environmental Services Division Directors
Regions I, VI, and YII
Introduction
Section 121 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) addresses the cleanup standards for Superfund remedial
actions. While the new statute retains the basic components ot
the existing Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
and Record of Decision (ROD) process, the ~121 provisions add
some new requirements and special emphasis to certain issues.
This guidance is intended to aid Regions in selecting remedial
actions pending the Agency's upcoming revision of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).
This guidance memorandum builds on the transition guidance
issued October 24, 1986 ("Implementation Strategy for Reauthorized
Superfund: Short Term Pr ior it ies for Ac t ion, II OSWER Direct i ve
9200.3-02) and elaborates on the guidance related to implementation
of selection of remedy requirements outlined at the Superfund
Implementation Meeting of November 19 - 20, 1986.
-------
~-
9355.0-19
This is one of several interim guidances we plan to issue
on some of the more difficult cleanup standards issues. The
Selection of Remedy Workgroup, which has been meeting since
July and includes representatives from Regions and States in
addition to a wide variety of Headquarters offices, is currently
engaged in drafting language for the NCP regulation and preamble.
A number of issues related to applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal and State requirements, cost-effectiveness, and challenges
associated with an increased use of treatment will be addressed.
In addition to this and subsequent interim guidances, we
will attempt to meet short-term Regional implementation needs
by making Headquarters staff available, upon your request, to
assist your staffs as they modify their RI/FS workplans for
ongoing projects in January and February, 1987. In preparation
for these project review sessions, Regions in Gonjunction with
State-lead Agencies; should begin to examine ongoing projects
and draft a list of potential changes that will be required to
satisfy ~12l of SARA. Regional staff should use this guidance
and the transition guidance as the basis for proposed workplan
revisions.
As soon as possible, Regions should notify potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) conducting RI/FSs of the new SARA
provisions and discuss with them any necessary modifications
of their workplans.
We will continue to delegate remedy selection authority to
Regions. In support of this effort over the longer term we
, J
will be revising the RI/FS Guidance and ROD Guidance and holding
related workshops in the Spring of 1987. Also, Headquart~rs
will be available to assist Regions with final FS revisions and
ROD preparation throughout the fiscal year. .
Overview of the Process
Under SARA, the remedial process retains its major analytical
components: a remedial investigation (RI) in which data about
site and waste characteristics, their hazards, and routes of
exposure are collected and analyzed, and in which data about
treatability of wastes and performance of treatment processes is
assembled as necessary; and a feasibility study (FS) in which a
number of potential remedial alternatives are developed' and
screened, and the most promising subset of alternatives is
evaluated against a range of factors and compared against one
another. This process culminates in the selection of a remedy.
Figure 1 suggests that the RI may need to be conducted in
at least two phases, while the FS will retain the three phases
described in the current NCP. The RI/FS has been evolving into
a,more interactive process: as the FS progresses, mor~ sophis-
tIcated data are required to assess the feasibility of an .
alternative. In addition to a literature survey, more site
-------
Fig,~ 1
Prop~~ed. Re~edy.Select~~~'h~~~~~ss Under - Reautho~~;zation
Remedial Inve.llgallon
Ph... I pn--.. II
Posl-Screenlng
5.10 Cha.ac'olilallon Field Invesligallon
.'-'
I Doline nahue and e.lenl 01 I. Perlorm Irealabilllv lesls as
conlaminallon Iwasle Iypes, necessarv
Scopmg concell'.alions, disl,ibulionsl Selecllon 01 Remedv
01 Ihe AliI S 2 Collecladdi1ionallield dala,.s
2 Roline DaDs necessarv 10 reline general sile 1. Selecl a ,emedv
characle,izalion . Ihal is proleclive
I Idenlilv pOlenlial 3 Assess need 101 IIealabilily 01 human heallh .
heallh based and slud.os, mcludlllg maleflals and Ihe
localion spocilic handling envi,onmenl
slale/F ede, al 2. Selecl a cosl-
AAARs, dolo. mine (. e"eclive remedy
imllal aclion levels . 3. Selecl a remedy
. Ihal will allain
2 Idonlily mllial dala I Slale/Fede.al
quallly oblocl,ves I Fea81blllty ARARs upon
100051 101 , ' Study , complelion
.emedial 4 Selecl a ,emedy
invesllgallon Ph... I Ph... If Ph... ... Ihal uses
Oevelopmenl 01 Inilial SCleening Delailed Analysis permanenl
3 Idonlily 1II.lIal Allolna,.vos 01 Allernalives solullOns and
p,olec'tope. able 1 Develop uene, al 811ernallv8
u,"I, likely I I
-------
-3-
9355.0-19
data and/or bench- or pilot-scale testing of a treatment
technology may be needed. Likewise, the RI has become a phased
process wherein the data quality objectives (DQOs) are tailored
to the need for additional site, waste, and treatment performance
i n forma t i O'n .
While the basic framework remains intact, SARA does add
some new features and emphasis. The most significant emphasis
is on risk reduction through destruction or detoxification of
hazardous waste by employing treatment technologies which
reduce toxicity, mobility or volume rather than protection
achieved through prevention of exposure. SARA calls for the
Agency to prefer remedies that use treatment to permanently
and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume
of wast9s over remedies that do not use such treatment. In
addition, SARA requires that the Agency select a remedy that
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technol-
ogies, or resource recovery technologies, to the maximum extent
. prac t icable.
It should be noted that volume reduction should be considered
distinctly from reducing toxicity and/or mobility; some treatment
processes will increase the volume of contaminated material
while effectively reducing toxicity or mobility, whereas other
processes may reduce volume and consequently increase the
concentration of constituents which increases the toxicity
and/or mobility of the contaminants.
Another significant change is the codification of the
CERCLA Compliance Policy. First published as an appendix to
the preamble of the current National Contingency Plan (50 FR
47946, Wednesday, November 20, 1985), this policy required
that Superfund remedial actions attain the applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of other Federal
environmental statutes. Furthermore, Section 300.68 of the'
NCP specifically refers to ARARs in regard to the development
of alternatives. SARA incorporates this requirement into
statutory law while adding the provision that remedial actions
also attain State requirements more stringent than Federal
requirements if they are also applicable or relevant and
appropriate. .
Also integral to the remedy selection process is SARA's
incorporation, with some modifications, of the Superfund program's
existing State involvement and community relations processes.
The new statute basically formalizes practices the Agency has
pursued and highlights the importance of early, constant, and
responsive relations with both the States and communities
affected by Superfund sites.
A discussion of how SARA affects each particular phase of
the remedy selection process follows.
-------
-4-
9355.0-19
Scoping of the RI/FS
In this phase, a workplan for the RI and th~ FS is prepared
to undertake the-studies. Existing data about the site trom
,previous investigations, including Preliminary Assessment and
Site Investigation data collectea for the National Priorities
Listing, are assembled and evaluated. Initial project boundaries
are identified, and a preliminary decision made on whether the
entire site will be evaluated and remedied as a single unit or
subdivided into two or more operable units. .
Most significant in this phase is the preliminary identi-
fication of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
that alternatives will need to attain. At this early stage in
the process, Regions and States should begin identifying. potential.
health-based requirements related to determining initial action
levels, requirements which restrict activities that can be .
undertaken at different locations, (such as floodplains, wetlands,
and historic sites), and on whether the requirements might be
met at the completion of each operable unit or the total site
remedy. Also, States should begin to identify and notify Regions
of State requirements that may be potentially applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the site.
Initial data quality objectives (DQOs) should also be
established to ensure that environmental, health effects and
treatability data will be of adequate quality and appropriate
for their intended uses.
Site Characterization (RI Phase I)
This phase focuses on defining the nature and extent
of contamination through field sampling and laboratory analysis
to determine initial cleanup goals and to characterize waste
types, mixtures, volume, the media in which they occur, concen-
tration ranges and profiles, and interface zones between media.
An analysis is conducted to characterize and assess risks,
routes of exposure, fate and transport of contaminants, and
likely human and environmental receptprs. DQOs should be
evaluated to identify data use, type, quality, and quantity.
DQOs should be refined to ensure that forseeable needs tor
environmental, health effects, and treatability data will be
met. At the completion of this stage, Regions should supply
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry with the
data and analytical results.
-------
-5-
9 3 5 5 .,0 -1 9
Development of Alternatives (FS Phase I)
This stage may begin concurrently with or slightly behind
the RI and consists of three major steps: identifying potential
treatment technologies and their associated containment or
disposal requirementsj prescreening of technologies for suitability
as part of alternatives, and assembling technology and/or
disposal combinations into alternatives.
Treatment alternatives should be developed ranging from
. an alternative that, to the degree possible, would eliminate
the need for long-term management (including monitoring) at
the site to alternatives involving treatment that would
reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume as their principal element.
Although alternatives may involve different technologies (which
will most often address toxicity and mobility) for different
types of waste, they will vary mainly in the degree to which
they rely on long-term management of treatment residuals or
low-concentrated wastes.
In addition to the range of treatment alternatives, a
containment option involving little or no treatment and a
no action alternative should also be developed.
Initial Screening (FS Phase II)
The purpose of the screening step is to reduce the number
of alternatives for further analysis while preserving a range
of options. Consultation between the Agency and the State is
very important at this stage. This screening is accomplished
by considering the alternatives against effectiveness, implement-
ability and cost factors. Cost is an important factor when
comparing alternatives which provide similar results (i.e.,
cost may be used to discriminate among treatment alternatives,
but not between treatment and nontreatment alternatives).
In some situations the above factors could occasionally.
result in elimination of alternatives which involve treatment
of the source ~s the principal element (e.g., large, complex
sites such as municipal landfills). Typically, ground water
actions will be necessary at such sites to achieve adequate
protection. The ROD must explain the rationale for eliminating
source treatment options at this point in the process.
Innovative technologies should be carried through the
screen if there is reasonable belief that they offer potential
tor better treatment performance or implementability, few or
lesser adverse impacts than other available approaches, or
lower costs than demonstrated technologies. .
-------
~-
9355.0-19
Post Screening Field Investigation (RI Phase II)
This phase of the RI should focus on collecting data
sufficient to make a well-substantiated remedy selection
decision. After a literature survey is conducted to identify
existing treatment data, treatability tests at the bench- and
sometimes pilot-scale may be necessary to test a particular
technology on actual site waste. Additional field data may
be collected as neede9 to further assess alternatives.
Detailed Analysis (FS Phase III)
The alternatives passing through the initial screen
should be analyzed in further detail against a range of factors
and compared against one another. .
The effectiveness of the alternatives should be assessed,
taking into account whether or not an alternative adequately
protects human health and the environment and attains Federal
and State ARARs, whether or not it significantly and permanently
reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous c9nstituents,
and whether or not it is technically reliable.
Alternatives should be evaluated against implementability
factors, including the technical feasibility and availability
of the technologies each alternative would employ, the technical
and institutional ability to monitor, maintain, and replace
technologies over time; and the administrative feasibility of
implementing the alternative.
Finally, the costs of construction and the long-term costs
of operating and maintaining the alternatives should be analyzed
using present-worth analysis.
Both the short- and long-term effects of each of these
factors must be assessed. In considering these items, Regions
will address all of the long-term effectiveness factors cited
in SARA ~l21(b)(I). After each alternative has been analyzed
against these factors, the remedial options should be compared
for their relatjve strerigths and weaknesses.
Upon completion of the RI and draft FS, EPA and the State
should formulate a recommended alternative or approach to
present to the community when the FS goes out for public comment.
At this point, the RI/FS is transmitted to ATSDR for their use
in preparing a health assessment.
-------
9355.(J-19
-7 -
Selection of Remedy.
The remedial action for a site should be selected among
those alternatives about which the following four findings
can be made:
o Remedies must be protective of human heal-th and ,the
environment. This means that the remedy meets or exceeds
ARARs or health-based levels established through a risk
assessment when ARARs do not exist.
o Remedies should attain Federal and State public health
and environmental requirements that have been identified
for a specific site. In general, the remedy selection
process presumes that alternatives will be formulated
and refined to ensure that they attain all of the
appropriate ARARs. However, SARA does provide waivers
which permit selection of remedies which do not attain
all ARARs under six different types ot circumstances:
fund-balancing, technical impracticability, interim
remedy, greater risk to health and the environment,
equivalent standard of performance, and inconsistent
application of State standards. If a remedy is protective,
. cost-effective, and adequately satLsfies the statutory
preferences, inability to attain a particular ARAR will
not necessarily pr~vent selection of that alt~rnative if
it was viewed as the all around best remedial alternative.
o Remedies must be cost-effective. In general, this
finding requires ensuring that tne results of a particular
alternative cannot be achieved by less costly m~thods.
This implies that for any specific site there may be
more than one cost-effective remedy, with each remedy
varying in its environmental and public health results.
o Remedies must utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies
to the maximum extent practicable. This determination
is interrelated to the cost-effectiveness finding and
includes consideration of technologicdl feasibility and
availability.
The selected remedy should represent th~ best balance across
all the effectiveness, implementability, and cost factors cxamlned
in the detailed analysis. In making this selection, the decision-
maker must consider the statutory preference tor treatment which
permanently and significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility or
volume of the waste.
The program ,permits the staging of remedial action imple-
mentation through multiple operable units. Decisionmakers may
choose to implement a limited measure to stabilize a site when
a suitable technology for that site is not currently available
hut clearly on the horizon or capacity for the desired technology
is currently unavailable. Initial cleanup actions should not
impede implementation of subsequent phases.
-------
-8 -
9355.U.:..19
Writing the ROD
The .Record of Decision (declaration statement and supporting
documentation) is the centerpiece of the administrative record
against which the Agency's decisionmaking may be judged by the
courts. Iri addition to containing an accurate and complete
summary of the site, the threat it poses, and the selected remedy,
the ROD must describe the relative strengths and weaknesses of
each alternative considered and offer a clear justification for
the final decision that is made. For Fund-financed actions, the
ROD should include a formal written concurrence from the State.
Specific statements and explanations that should appear in
the ROD include the following:
°A statement and justification that the selected remedy is
protective and cost-effe~tive, attains ARARs and utilizes
permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable, where all statutory requirements and"
preferences are fully satisfied.
° An explanation as. to why an alternative that would have reduced
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of waste was not selected
if the selected remedy does not satisfy the preference for
permanent solutions. -
° A statement that indicates whether a remedy which does not
satisfy the statutory preferences for treatment is intended
as the final ~emedy for that site (at a minimum this remedy
would have to be protective and cost-effective) or whether
the action is an operable unit that will be followed by
subsequent actions to achieve a final remedy which satisfies
the preferences. The timeframe for completing the total
remedy should be specified.
° A description of
were found to be
site and will be
a description of
those Federal and State requirements which
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
met. In addition, where ARARs do not exist,
the health-based level that will be met.
° A statement of which ARARs will not be met and the waiver
that will be invoked to justify the nonattainment.
° In those occasional situations where no treatment alternative
was carried through the screen to the detailed analysis (tor
sites such as municipai landfills) a special explanation
should be included in the ROD.
Decisionmakers have some flexibility as to how specific the
ROD is regarding the use of treatment technologies. At a
minimum, the ROD should state what technology will be applied
to what type and amount of waste and the performance goal that
process is expected to reach. For instance, the ROD may state
that thermal destruction is the selected remedy. However, the
-------
~-
9355.0-19
effectiveness, implementability, and cost analyses must be
based on a specific process within that technology category,
such as rotary kiln, to ground the analysis in hard data.
When the remedial action is bid, any process in that technology
category stated in the ROD would be eligible provided they
could match the performance goals of the process analyzed in
detail.
Applicability to Ongoing Projects
Superfund reauthorization affects a wide variety of projects
in many different stages of development. The cleanup standards
provisions in Sl2l will affect ongoing projects in a particularly
unique way. For projects closest to ROD signature, Regional
managers and project managers should focus on whether an adequate
range of treatment alternatives was considered for feasibility,
and whether Federal .and particularly State ARARs have been
thoroughly considered and will be met, unless a waiver is to be
invoked. If there is a ~ound basis for selecting. and rejecting.
alternatives under the new statutory requirements and preferences,
Regions should proceed to ROD signature and may postpone treatability
studies (that would otherwise be conducted in the RI/FS) until
remedial design.
On the other hand, projects in their early stages should be
modified to be consistent with the process outlined in this
guidance. In particular, Regions should assess the need for
treatability testing and initiate immediately studies necessary
to ensure availability of needed data in the detailed analysis
phase. . .
Ground Water Operable Units
With the exception of specific statements in Sl2l(d)(2)(A)
(ii) and S12l(d)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), the cleanup standards pro-
visions apply most directly to source control measures. The
existing approach toward ground water remediation outlined in the
"Draft Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water
at Superfund Sites (September 29,1986)" remains largely intact
with some modifications necessary to conform to SARA requirements
related to ARARs. Specific guidance on ARARs, including MCLGs and
WQC, will be provided in the near future.
The remedial approach outlined in the Draft Guidance derives
directly from EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy, which states.
that ground waters should be protected differentially based on
characteristics of vulnerability, use and value. Superfund's Draft
Guidance calls for the development of a limited number of ground
water remedial alternatives within a performance range, defined in
terms of different remediation levels (the level of ground water
contaminant reduction achieved), and different rates of restoration
(the time required to achieve r~mediation levels). .
-------
-10 -
9355.0-19
Factors that influence a decision regarding the appropriate
rate of restoration are:
o
Feasibility of providing an alternative water supply;
o
Current use of ground water;
o
Potential need for ground water;
o
Effectiveness and reliability of institutional
controls;
o
Ability to monitor and control the movement of
contaminants in ground water;
o
Other risks borne by the affected population; and
o
population sensitivities.
Additionally, limiting the extent of contamination, the impact
of contamination on environmental receptors, the technical practi-
cability and the cost of alternatives should also be analyzed and
factored into the decision-making process.
Should you have any questions concerning this guidance, please
contact aill Hanson (FTS 382-2345) in the Hazardous Site Control
Division or John Cross (FTS 475-6770) in the CERCLA Enforcement
Division.
------- |