United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
RCRA Corrective Action Workshop On
Results-Based Project Management:
Fact Sheet Series
EPA
March 2000
WWW.
FACT SHEET #3
FINAL REMEDY SELECTION FOR
RESULTS-BASED RCRA
CORRECTIVE ACTION
$
Congress, the general public, EPA, and State agencies believe the rate and pace of RCRA cleanups
should be increased. Tim Fields, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, recently indicated that Corrective Action was the RCRA program's highest
priority. One of the efforts designed to improve Corrective Action progress is a new workshop titled
"RCRA Corrective Action Workshop on Results-Based Project Management". This fact sheet, the
third in the series supporting the Workshop, is intended to improve the pace of remedy evaluation
and selection by clarifying EPA 's guidance and highlighting areas of administrative flexibility.
Notes and references are provided at the end of the fact sheet.
How can this fact sheet(1) help you?
If you are involved with RCRA Corrective Action as an EPA or State regulator, member of the
public, or representative of a facility, this fact sheet can help you understand:
the difference between an "interim" and "final" remedy;
the three performance standards that EPA believes all final remedies should achieve;
how to identify the "best" remedy when one or more alternatives appear to be capable of achieving
the three performance standards;
EPA's expectations for how thorough the evaluation of remedial alternatives needs to be; and,
the roles and responsibilities in evaluating and selecting a final remedy.
What are the primary differences between a final and interim remedy?
Interim Remedies
>Qnterim measures should control, minimize or eliminate threats to
human health and the environment (HH&E) in the short term until
the owner operator has implemented a final remedy.
>Qnterim measures can often be implemented quickly.
> fleeting all requirements for the interim measure does not mean a
facility has completed all of their corrective action obligations.
>Qnterim measures should also, to the extent practicable, be consistent
with anticipated final remedies.
Final Remedies
^CFinal remedies should provide long-term protection of HH&E by
achieving three performance standards (described on next page).
^CFinal remedies typically go through a more rigorous evaluation than
interim remedies.
>[fcompleting a final remedy, including long-term monitoring as
appropriate, means that the facility is done with corrective action for
the part of the facility addressed by the final remedy.
RCRA Corrective Action Workshop on Results-Based Project Management
Fact Sheet No. 3, Final Remedy Selection for Results-Based RCRA Corrective Action , Page 1
-------
Stakeholders should keep in mind that, currently, the two most important short-term goals of the
RCRA Corrective Action program are to achieve two "environmental indicators." These two
indicators focus on ensuring that humans are not exposed to unacceptable levels of contamination,
and that contaminated groundwater does not continue to migrate above levels of concern beyond
its current furthest three-dimensional extent. As warranted, facilities should implement interim
measures where necessary to achieve these indicators as soon as possible. For more information
on environmental indicators, refer to http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/cleanup.htmtfindicators.
What should final RCRA Corrective Action remedies accomplish?
EPA believes that final remedies selected for RCRA Corrective Action facilities should achieve the
following three performance standards:
1. Protect human health and the environment based on reasonably anticipated land use(s),
both now and in the future.
Protecting human health and the environment is the general mandate from the RCRA
statute; therefore, it is appropriate to include this goal as the first performance standard for
final RCRA Corrective Action remedies. This standard also serves to ensure remedies
include protective activities (e.g., providing an alternative drinking water supply) that would
not necessarily be needed to achieve the other two standards.
2. Achieve media cleanup objectives appropriate to the assumptions regarding current and
reasonably anticipated land use(s) and current and potential beneficial uses of water
resources. The cleanup objectives should address media cleanup levels (chemical
concentrations), points of compliance (where cleanup levels should be achieved), and
remediation time frames (time to implement the remedy and achieve cleanup levels at the
point of compliance).
Note that for human health, EPA's goal remains to reduce the threat from carcinogenic
contaminants such that, for any medium, the excess risk of cancer to an individual exposed
over a lifetime generally falls within a range from one in ten thousand to one in one million
(i.e., 1x10~4 to 1x10~6) . Note also that EPA prefers cleanup levels at the more protective
end of this risk range; however, cleanup levels determined on a site-specific basis that
represent anywhere within the range could be acceptable. For toxicants associated with
adverse effects other than cancer, groundwater cleanup levels should be established at
concentrations to which human populations, including sensitive subgroups, could be
exposed on a daily basis without appreciable risk of negative effect during a lifetime. Such
levels are generally interpreted as equal to or below a Hazard Index of one.
3. Remediate the sources of releases so as to eliminate or reduce further releases of
hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents that may pose a threat to human health and
the environment, and using treatment to address principal threat wastes2, unless alternative
approaches are approved by the overseeing regulator. In this context, "sources" includes
both the location of the original release as well as locations where significant mass of
contaminants may have migrated. Note that while EPA expects facilities to use treatment
technologies to address principal threats, we also expect that containment technologies as
well as institutional controls can be used to address wastes that pose relatively low long-
term threats.
RCRA Corrective Action Workshop on Results-Based Project Management
Fact Sheet No. 3, Final Remedy Selection for Results-Based RCRA Corrective Action , Page 2
-------
Final Remedy Performance Standards
Alternatives (as few as appropriate)
m
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS — Do alternatives:
1. protect human health and the environment"?/
2. attain media cleanup objectives?
3. control sources of release?
(treatment of principal threats)
\
\ t
7
A
D
E
You could think of the final
remedy performance standards
as a threshold that needs to be
crossed or a filter or screen
(Figure 1) that needs to be
passed through prior to
considering an option further.
For example, remedial
alternatives B and C, as shown in
the adjacent graphic, do not
need to be considered further
because it was obvious to
decision-makers that they were
not capable of achieving the
three final remedy performance
standards.
What other tools should
I use to determine the best remedy for a particular situation?
When one or more alternatives appear to be capable of achieving the three final remedy
performance standards (e.g., Alternatives A, D and E in the above graphic), EPA recommends that
decision-makers use the seven attributes (called Balancing/Evaluation Criteria) listed below to
help identify the "best" option.
1. Long-Term Effectiveness: Decision-makers should evaluate remedies based on the long-
term reliability and effectiveness they afford, along with the degree of certainty that they will
remain protective of human health and the environment. Additional considerations include:
the magnitude of risks that will remain at a site from untreated hazardous wastes, and
hazardous wastes and hazardous constituents, and treatment residuals; and the reliability
of any containment systems and institutional controls. A remedial option should include a
description of the approaches facilities will be used to assess long-term performance and
effectiveness.
2. Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Reduction: Decision-makers should evaluate remedies
based on the degree to which they employ treatment, including treatment of principal
threats, that reduces the toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous wastes and hazardous
constituents, considering, as appropriate: the treatment processes to be used and the
amount of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents that will be treated; the degree to
which treatment is irreversible; and the types of treatment residuals that will be produced.
3. Short-term Effectiveness: Decision-makers should evaluate remedies based on the short-
term effectiveness and short-term risks that remedies pose, along with the amount of time it
will take for remedy design, construction, and implementation.
4. Implementability: Decision-makers should evaluate remedies based on the ease or
difficulty of remedy implementation, considering as appropriate: the technical feasibility of
constructing, operating, and monitoring the remedy; the administrative feasibility of
coordinating with and obtaining necessary approvals and permits from other agencies; and
the availability of services and materials, including capacity and location of needed
treatment, storage, and disposal services.
RCRA Corrective Action Workshop on Results-Based Project Management
Fact Sheet No. 3, Final Remedy Selection for Results-Based RCRA Corrective Action , Page 3
-------
5. Cost: Decision-makers should evaluate remedies based on capital and operation and
maintenance costs, and the net present value of the capital and operation and maintenance
costs.
6. Community Acceptance: Decision-makers should evaluate remedies based on the degree
to which they are acceptable to the interested community.
7. State Acceptance: Decision-makers should evaluate remedies should be evaluated based
on the degree to which they are acceptable to the State in which the subject facility is
located. This is particularly important where EPA, not the State, selects the remedy.
Figures 2 and 3 provide two graphical ways to illustrate and communicate how the decision maker
may use the balancing/evaluation criteria to identify the "best" alternative. Figure 2 could be used
when more than one alternative is capable of achieving the performance standards, i.e,. the
alternative that ranks highest under the greatest number of criteria will stand out as a superior
solution relative to the others. Figure 3 could be used when you are evaluating just one alternative
that was shown to meet the performance standards, i.e., a remedy could be selected based on
whether it was found to be "acceptable" under each of the evaluation criteria.
Figure 2:
Tool for Comparative Analysis of Multiple Alternatives
Long-Term
Effectiveness
Short-Term
Effectiveness
Best
Best
Cost
Best
State
Acceptance
Best
Opt 1 Toxicity, Mobility,
Volume
Reduction
Best
Opt. 2
Opt. 3
Worst
Opt. 1
Opt. 2
Opt. 3
- Opt. 1
-opt 2 Implementability
-Opt. 3 Best
Worst
Opt. 3
Opt. 1
Opt. 2
Community
Acceptance
Best
Opt. 3
Opt. 1 Worst
Opt. 2
Opt. 1
Opt. 2
Opt. 1
Opt. 2
Opt. 3
Worst
Opt. 3
Worst
Worst
Worst
RCRA Corrective Action Workshop on Results-Based Project Management
Fact Sheet No. 3, Final Remedy Selection for Results-Based RCRA Corrective Action , Page 4
-------
Long-Term
Effectiveness
Figure 3
Approach for Analyzing Single Alternative
Short-Term
Effectiveness
Cost
State
Acceptance
Acceptable
Toxicity, Mobility,
Volume
Reduction
Acceptable
Acceptable
A
Unacceptable
Implementability
Acceptable
A
Acceptable Acceptable
i L Community
T
Unacceptable
Acceptance
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
nother tool that may help decision-makers identify acceptable remedies is the list of EPA
expectations for final remedies at RCRA Corrective Action sites (see March 1999 Corrective Action
Workshop Fact Sheet #2 at www. ). Although remedial expectations are
not binding requirements, they can be very helpful during remedy selection because they reflect
EPA's collective experience in using the remedy performance standards and evaluation/balancing
criteria. They also outline the expectations the lead Agency reviewer will likely apply to a proposed
remedial alternative. Remedies that are designed to fulfill these expectations typically will achieve
the three final remedy performance standards and perform well with regard to the
balancing/evaluation criteria. One of those expectations pertaining to contaminated groundwater is
provided below.
Expectation for Final Remedy Addressing Contaminated Groundwater
at RCRA Corrective Action Facilities
EPA expects to return usable groundwaters to their maximum beneficial uses wherever
practicable, within a time frame that is reasonable given the particular circumstances of
the site. When restoration of the groundwater is not practicable, EPA expects to prevent
or minimize further migration of the plume, prevent exposure to the contaminated
groundwater and evaluate further risk reduction. EPA also expects to control or
eliminate surface and subsurface sources of groundwater contamination.
RCRA Corrective Action Workshop on Results-Based Project Management
Fact Sheet No. 3, Final Remedy Selection for Results-Based RCRA Corrective Action , Page 5
-------
How thorough of an assessment should you conduct when evaluating
one or more remedial options?
There are several general rules of thumb that may help you answer this question. First, EPA
believes that decision-makers should tailor the evaluation of remedial alternatives based on site-
specific circumstances. For example, excavation of a relatively small amount of contaminated
media followed by off-site treatment and disposal at a permitted facility would not typically warrant
a detailed evaluation. Second, EPA expects owner/operators to evaluate only appropriate,
implementable approaches, consistent with expected future land uses. For example, we would not
typically expect an evaluation of an option involving excavation, incineration and off-site disposal of
an entire 100-acre landfill. Third, decision-makers should only evaluate the number of alternatives
necessary to demonstrate the preferred remedy is capable of achieving the three final remedy
performance standards and that it was acceptable with respect to the balancing/evaluation criteria.
EPA believes that there will be a significant number of facilities where evaluation of multiple
alternatives is not necessary because a single approach is found to be acceptable. For example,
at a facility where the owner/operator proposes to excavate all the contaminated soil for off-site
recycling, treatment or disposal, it may not be necessary to evaluate other alternatives. Similarly,
where there are straightforward remedial solutions (e.g., where standard engineering solutions
have proven effective in similar situations) or where presumptive remedies
(www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/presump) can be applied, it may not be necessary to evaluate
more than one alternative. However, when only one alternative is proposed, the decision maker
typically would make one of the following three decisions:
(1) the alternative is acceptable and will be proposed as the preferred final remedy in the
Statement of Basis (or equivalent);
(2) the alternative could be acceptable with modifications; or
(3) other alternatives should be presented to allow for a comparison and selection of the best
option.
Do I have to develop a formal report (typically referred to as a Corrective
Measures Study or CMS) to document the evaluation of remedial
alternatives?
EPA believes that facilities should document their evaluation of remedial alternatives; however, the
detail and format of that documentation could vary considerably depending on the site-specific
situation. For example, a detailed letter could be sufficient to document a proposal involving small-
scale excavation and off-site treatment/disposal. A complex site, however, involving a large-scale
cleanup would likely warrant a more extensive explanation of a preferred approach along with a
comparison to other plausible options. Regardless of the format, EPA believes that the
documentation should include an explanation of how the remedy will (1) achieve the three final
remedy performance standards, and (2) how well the remedy performs with regard to the
balancing/evaluation criteria.
RCRA Corrective Action Workshop on Results-Based Project Management
Fact Sheet No. 3, Final Remedy Selection for Results-Based RCRA Corrective Action , Page 6
-------
What are my responsibilities in evaluating and selecting final RCRA
Corrective Action remedies?
Owner or Operator of a Facility
Your primary responsibility is to protect human health and the environment from contamination at
your facility. EPA believes you should begin very early in Corrective Action to think about options
to address environmental problems at your facility. For example, you should consider remedial
options prior to and during site investigations to help focus resources on data needed to justify a
recommended remedy. You should identify (and submit to the overseeing regulator) one or more
remedial options that you believe are capable of achieving the final remedy performance
standards, and recommend the best remedy (in your opinion) based on the balancing/evaluation
criteria. You should implement the remedy selected by the overseeing agency and monitor
performance to ensure that it is functioning as intended. And, very importantly, you should keep
interested members of the public well informed of all Corrective Action activities taking place at
your facility. EPA strongly believes that the public will more likely accept a facility's remedy
recommendation if they have been involved early and throughout Corrective Action.
Lead Overseeing Regulator
Your primary responsibility is to serve the public by selecting a final remedy that you believe is
capable of meeting the three final remedy performance standards. This responsibility starts with
you encouraging the facility owner/operator to fulfill their responsibilities (discussed previously).
You should keep in mind that there are a variety of ways to provide that encouragement. For
example, requirements to investigate facilities and evaluate remedies are typically included in
permits or enforcement orders. However, another option that has been successful at many
facilities is simply "asking" the facility owner/operator to conduct and document certain Corrective
Action related activities. Of course, you or the facility owner/operator should document, in writing,
oral agreements to make sure decision-makers have the same understanding of work to be
accomplished, major milestones, public involvement, and level of regulatory oversight. This
strategy of informally asking the facility to perform work is most applicable to data collection and
evaluations conducted prior to final remedy selection and implementation. Furthermore, such
informal agreements typically would work only where there is a willing and motivated facility
owner/operator with a good compliance record. For example, there may be many facilities that
would like to complete Corrective Action for all or part of the facility to allow redevelopment; such
facilities may be anxious to perform work and would rather not wait for an enforcement order or
permit to initiate site investigations and evaluations of remedial alternatives. EPA believes the final
remedy itself should be captured more formally in a permit or order. Certainly, many situations
warrant a more enforceable agreement, but less formal agreements, where possible, have
significantly reduced administrative burdens and time. Lastly, when you are relying on less formal
approaches, you should make it clear to the facility owner/operator that you reserve the right to use
more formal and enforceable approaches if necessary.
Other responsibilities associated with a final RCRA Corrective Action remedy include: conducting a
review (as needed) of the facility's evaluation of remedial alternatives; determining whether the
facility's remedy recommendation is acceptable with regard to the performance standards and
remedy balancing/evaluation criteria; writing a "statement of basis" or equivalent that seeks public
input on the rationale for a proposed final remedy; communicating to the public about the final
decision in a "final decision/response to comments document" or equivalent; and, ensuring that
the facility owner/operator is implementing the final remedy and documents that it is working as
RCRA Corrective Action Workshop on Results-Based Project Management
Fact Sheet No. 3, Final Remedy Selection for Results-Based RCRA Corrective Action , Page 7
-------
intended. Some examples of key elements to include in the statement of basis and response to
comments document are provided below and are presented in more detail in (Directive 9902.6,
April 29, 1991).
EPA encourages regulators to recognize that they have a range of options for reviewing a facility's
evaluation of remedial alternatives. For example, some regulators do not require the submission or
regulatory approval of a Corrective Measures Study or equivalent; rather, they focus on defining
clear cleanup objectives and methods to monitor performance, and give significant latitude to the
facility owner/operator to identify a remedy that the facility believes can achieve the performance
standards. Yet in other situations, regulators have been very active participants providing a
detailed review of a formal evaluation of remedial alternatives submitted by the facility.
Recommended Elements
for the Statement of Basis
Introduction
/[facility name and location
/Purpose of document
/[Importance of public input
Proposed Remedy
/[describe proposed remedy
Facility Background
/Bite history
/Summary of investigations
/Summary of interim action
Environmental Problem
/[describe contaminated media
/[facility risks
/[describe significant uncertainties
Summary of Alternative (s) and
Proposed Remedy
/[performance standards
/[balancing/evaluation criteria
Public Participation
/History of public input
/Upcoming public meetings
/[location of file record
Recommended Elements for
Final Decision/Response to Comments
Introduction
/fflacility name
/purpose of document
Selected Remedy
/flescribe selected remedy with respect
to performance standards and
balancing/evaluation criteria.
/flescribe remaining significant
uncertainties and how they will be
managed
/flescribe performance monitoring
Public Participation
/flescribe public participation activities
Public Comments and Agency Responses
/flescribe comments received from the
public, other regulatory agencies,
local officials, and the owner/operator
of the facility
/provide Agency's responses to each of
the comments received, including
changes to the remedy based on the
comments
Future Actions
/flescribe approximate schedule for
significant activities
Provide declaration signed by a
designated Agency official
RCRA Corrective Action Workshop on Results-Based Project Management
Fact Sheet No. 3, Final Remedy Selection for Results-Based RCRA Corrective Action , Page 8
-------
Interested Member of the Public
Your role as an interested member of the public is vitally important in regard to final remedies at
RCRA Corrective Action facilities for two primary reasons. First, it is you and the environment that
you live in that the remedy should protect. Second, as described above, "community acceptance"
is one of the balancing/evaluation criteria that is used to identify the best final remedy for a
particular situation. Therefore, you should become involved! One of the best ways to become
involved is to contact the facility owner/operator and the overseeing regulator and ask them to
sponsor regular meetings with representatives from the community. EPA has found that the
relationships fostered in such meetings often leads to remedies that are acceptable to the parties
involved; this is especially true when the meetings are held early and often during the earliest
stages of investigations and throughout the cleanup of the facility.
Where do I get more information?
For more information about the RCRA Corrective Action program and the Results-Based Site
Management Workshop, visit the Corrective Action Internet home page at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/tfwkshp.
End Notes:
1. This document provides guidance to EPA and States on how best to implement RCRA Corrective
Action. It also provides guidance to the public and the regulated community on how EPA intends to
exercise its discretion in implementing its regulations. The document does not, however, substitute
for EPA's regulations, nor is it regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally-binding requirements
on EPA, States, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation based upon
the circumstances. EPA may change this guidance in the future as appropriate.
2. EPA expects to use treatment to address the principal threats posed by a site whenever practicable
and cost-effective. Contamination that represents principal threats for which treatment is most likely
to be appropriate includes contamination that is highly toxic, highly mobile, or cannot be reliably
contained, and that would present a significant risk to human health and the environment should
exposure occur.
RCRA Corrective Action Workshop on Results-Based Project Management
Fact Sheet No. 3, Final Remedy Selection Process for Results-Based RCRA Corrective Action Projects, Page 9
-------
------- |