Uiriilind Statins
Environmental Protection
Agency
Offfca of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive: 9355.0-27FS
ril 1990
ft EPA
A Guide to Selecting
Superfund Remedial Actions
Office of lE:inHEi(i;^»n:!|i..iiii»[|.Ji(• n npipropriitto niro
Cantaiin.mp.nit will !»r vanmdenet for maa&ea fJiat ;:>:mr a nlatively
law !«(i,!f-it(:r-rri threat or wherv treatment ui impmctK-abit . Thttoe
includii!! wmitisn (.lui.t nuw n«w haiiltli~b«[iii»cl krraln,, ure nutHitiin-
ItiniUy iiauDaobiLli!, or citlioirwiiiie CUM \w irnllinbly oaiitiiin«d over \oag
piiruxlji eiftimo; wfinbtmi thill; iur« tochnkniliy diflk-ult to tritnt 01-
for wliiilch ltn)n.l:i]3M)i)K u inleiuiiUa ac uiiiiivnilnjbl«; iiitunltiaoii
where (:r(!n);i]]>!!i]1t-lc»nni!nn, wlntiliiKiitiaa, or other
niiiieriinlii ItiaiJiclJJinjj; prabliMgctn; oir niton thnt «:r« iHtt.nionli ruiiily
la]'ij« where the ncope lafthe pirobleign nauny mnlde tirenlnrient of nil
wiuiben ingipnictlcflJble, nuch mi irnuinidpnil liuridfillii or
• ,A:reiin oDiiitairniiuitocl with high noDoenirnltiaiCLn of toxic com-
poundn;
• Ljqu'idn uikl oitber UjtfMy iBabili! icniiitairinl»;;
- niKKlin (».)!;,, caaUimnuitod gixnuadi ntnllnr,
:i«Ehdijt[ii!iiit1t noil) Ithnl: \xaw m^inttauit irimk aliiiqionnm; air
M»dii> oointniiumij; nantainhinntii noiwinl oirdhEin
nliawn
control® aim motit uaefU aa a ituftplimunt to ttngi-
nttringeontnU/brtltort- aadlonff-termmamagemjent. Iniititu-
itiotuill contnlii (e.([. dnnd, nBumridtianaii, prahiiliiitioirui of w«ll con-
.i*riji«tk iin) ijonpaitefil; in mnltrolliiig i!«pcmiuiri!« iliuirinfi irnme-
dial iKitknii iLngiipl«>inieicrbn1.ioni nnd nn m nupptiinmiKnt to ]bn|g;-te:fini
'En(j-Lni! Appropruiti nmadiaa mftxn will exmbim treatment and con-
iainmmt. F'ac 11 iipendlic itifce, itrentaMMit of l.lie prwciipunl
tlu«!iKUii) mny bi) minbinecl with ranitaiiucncnt of treniineiiit
raiiidniiLln iiinil low-lew! caiaUuninnb»d cniiteiriiil.
t»icfwu)ii\ywa Amid be amuidnrtd if tJwy offer the
potential for mmattmbla w nifwriw ininimunt parfiormancK,
/(' U'cf/Jirmicrr adtwmf imf>af.f.n, tw louxar coot® for itimiilar le.vf.it of
per formanee than demonatmtad Mc.A.na^ijw'n.
>• Ground wateni will be returned to their lttneficia.1 uaen within
reaaonabk perioda of time wh
April 1990 -
-------
Exhibit 2
Kay SUqpo in thin Dowlopmmnl of llnniiiiilnl Alternative*
OiiviitQp Prtiimmiwy HorniMJiiutNW (loilhl
HimJih-taiitiidi H»rm«iiiEtii»« igwiM )«,([.,. IO^UKCIMMI eanew imitt ti
poimi ol jLrtur«. ARAflu: MMnuiltingi in X pprn
OHorrrmo .IU'IIM
ttui iiK|iinni ritrriiMJiiill iiciJori
Wwniiif)' P'rinciiMUl Thf««i« tKiM am Cjirtalirtiiinu four Tiwihrriiut
• Troitfl l«iu«hi. t\iq\My loi
kjuicflMii. iirikiii ««*M»rn cMmuiiiiinxiriBii
ktanrtity low-towi! 'UliiiMitii Ittllt iiw CjifKlriutlMi tw CcMnMitfMnniirvl
t
CcNnitJitn TrimtrrMixM
i
I'oniiJP, Tnun
• TinlMt to ItowrtW tllfll cal/1
i
1=1% Truit
• TriMt la HviJ«i tor
demon strate that statutory require-
ments have been satisfied (Sec.
300.43(XfXD). Each of these as-
pects of EPA's remedy selection
approach are described below,
GOAL AND EXPECTATIONS
OF THE REMEDY SELECTION
PROCESS
The national goal of the remedy
selection process is "to select reme-
dies that are protective of human
health and the environment, that
mainbEiin protection over time, and
thai: minimise untreated waste"
(NCP Sec. 300.43
-------
EXHIBIT 3: NINE EVALUATION
CRITERIA
EPA has developed nine criteria to
be used to evaluate remedial alterna-
tives to ensure: all important considera-
tions are factored into remedy selection
decisions. These criteria lire derived
from the statutory requirements of
Section 121, particularly the long-term
cflecttyeness and related CDnsi derations
speciffedinbSection 121(bXl), as well as
other additional technical and policy
considerationa Unit have proven to be
important for selecting among re medial
alte rnatives.
Threshold Criteria
The two most important criteria
are statutory requirements that must
be satisfied by any alternative in order
for it to 1>E! eligible for Mlection.
1. Overall protection of human health
and that environment addresBei
whether or not a remedy provides
adequate protect ion Bind describes
how riska poaed through each
exposu re path way (asau nni ng a. rea-
sonable maximum exposure) are
eliminated, reduced, or controlled
throu |j;h treat merit, engi neeri ng
controls, or institutional coatrola.
2. Compliance with applicable or rele-
vant andappropriate requirements
(ARARn) addrenaen whether a rem-
edy will meet all of the applicable
or relevant and appropriate require-
ments of other Federal and State
environmental laws or whether a
waiver can be justified.
Primary
Five primary balancing criteria are
used to identify major trade-offs between
remedial alternatives. These trade-off*
are ultimately balanced to identify the
preferred alternative and to select the final
remedy.
1. Long-term tffecliven«s» and
permanence refers to the ability of n
remedy Ui maintain reliable protec-
tion of human health and the envi-
ronment over time, once cleanup goals
have been met.
'!.. Reduction of' toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment in the an-
ticipated performance of the treat-
ment technologies a remedy may
employ.
3. Short-term effectiveness addresses the
period of time needed to achieve pro-
tection and any advene impacta on
human health and the environment
that, may be posed during the con-
struction and implementation period,
until cleanup goals are achieved.
4. Implementability in the technical and
administrative feasibility of «. rem-
edy, including the availability of ma-
terials arid services needed to imple-
ment a particular option.
5. Coat included estimated capital and
operation and maintenance• costs, and
net present worth costs.
Modifying Criteria
Them: criteria may not be considered
fully until aflerthe formalpubliccorrunent
period on the Proposed .'Ran and RJ/F'S
report in complete, although EPA worka
with the State and community throughout
the project.
1. Staff, acceptance addresses the imp-
part agency's comment*. Where the
State or other Federal agency is the
lend agency, EPA't acceptance of'the
•elected remedy should be uddreaaed
under thin criterion. State views on
compliance with State ARARs are
especially important.
'.I. Community acceptance refers to the
public's general response to the alter-
natives deflcrribed i in the Pro poned PI an
and the HI/FS report.
The 1990 NCP at 55 FR S21SLZ3.
describes how the detailed analysis of al-
ternatives in to be performed using these
criteria.. The deta.filed analysis is the infor-
mation bane upon which the remedy nelcc
tic in dominion in made. Chapter 7 of the
"Interim Final Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility
Studied Under CERCLA" (October 1988)
provides flirt her detail on the process.
issued for comment along with the
RI/FS. Upon receipt of public com-
ments on the Proposed Plan, the
lead agency consults with the sup-
port; agency to determine if the pre-
ferred alternative remains the most
appropriate remedial action for the
site or operable unit. The final
remedy is selected and documented
in a Record of Decision.
Considering thiE! Nine Criteria
The identification of a preferred
alternative and final selection of a
remedy is derived from considera-
tion of nine evaluation criteria in
three major steps, as described in
the 1990 NCP (Sec.
300.430(0(D(ii)(E)J. The nine crite-
ria are presented in Exhibit 3. The
steps in which the criteria are con-
sidered are depicted in Exhibit 4
and discussed below,
Threshold Criteria
The first step of remedy selec-
tion is to identify those alternatives
that satisfy the threshold criteria.
Only those alternatives that pro-
vide adequate protection of human
health and the environment and
comply with ARARs (or justify a
waiver) are eligible for selection.
Alternatives that do not satisfy the
threshold criteria should not be
evaluated further.
Primary Balancin g Criteria
The second step involves the
balancing; of tradeoffs among pro-
tective and ARAR-compliant alter-
natives with respect to the five pri-
mary balancing; criteria (and modi-
lying criteria, if known). In this
step, alternativesare compared with
each other based on their long-term
effectiveness and permanence, re-
duction in toxicity, mobility, or vol-
ume achieved through treatment,
implementability, short-term effec-
tiveness, and cost. The sequence in
which the criteria are generally con-
sidered, and pertinent considera-
tions related to each, are noted be-
low.
1. Long-term, effectiveness and
permanence is a major theme of
CERCLA Section 121, and,
therefore, is one of the two most
important criteria used during
remedy selection to determine
the maximum extent to 'which
permanence and treatment are
practicable. This factor will
often be decisive where alterna-
tives vary significantly in the
types of residuals that will
remain onsite and/or their re-
spective long-term management
controls.
Apr U 1990-3
-------
Exhibit 4
THRESHOLD
cirri: FIIA
UUI1ICMG
CRITERIA
Alternatives
from Screening,
EtouiJ an Program
E:JUM)Ctiltkiiflii
Long-term Effectiveness
Reduction of T.M.V.
Short-term Effectiveness
lrnptonwiiab»lrr|r
Cost
.1.
CliooiM) Preferred Alternative:
•• Ejalancing attorn Critnrin
•• Emphasize Long-Term
Effectiveness am) Reduction ol
T.M.V.
.1.
lUONIFYNGi
CRITERIA
Proposed Ran IUUBNJ tor Comment
Stat» mi
Community
Acceptance
1
Selected Remedy
2. Reduction in the tenacity, mobil-
ity, or volume of contaminants
achieved through the applica-
tion of treatment technologies
is the other criterion that will
be emphasised during remedy
selection in determining the
maximum extent to which per-
manent solutions and treatment
are practicable. Remedies that
use treatment to address mate-
rials comprising the principal
threats posed by a site are pre-
ferred over those that, do not.
Treatment as part of CEECLA
r e m ed ii e a s h ou I til g
-------
Exhibit 5
Relationship of the Nine Criteria to the Statutory Findings
IMIitlE CRITERIA
J
STATUTORY FINDINGS
J
PROTECTION OF HUMAN! HEALTH
AMD THE ENVIRONMENT
••>•• PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
AMD TOE! ENVIRONMENT
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
AND PERMANENCE
TOXICITY. MOBILITY. OR
VOLUME REDUCTION
THROUGH TREATMENT
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
STATE AGENCY ACCEPTANCE;
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs OR
JUSTIFICATION OF A 'WAIVER
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT
SOLUTIONS AMD TREATMENT OR
RECOVERY TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PRACTICABLE f'MEP")
PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT
AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT OR
EXPLANATION AS TO WHY
PREFERENCE NOT SATISFIED
Identification of a Preferred
Alternative
Once the relative performance
of the protective and ARAR-compli-
ant al.ternatives under each crite-
rion has been established, prelimi-
nary determinations> of which op-
tions an cost-effective und which
alternatives utilize permanent so-
lutions and treatment technologies
to the maximum extent practicable
are made to identify the preferred
alternative. Exhibit 5 illustrates
the relationship between the nine
criteria and the statutory require-
ments for remedy selection.
Cost-effectiveness is determined
by comparing; the costs of all alter-
natives being considered with their
overall effectiveness to determine
whether the costs are proportional
to the effectiveness achieved. Over-
all (effectiveness for the purpose of
this determination include!) long-
term effectiveness and permanence;
reduction of toxicity, mobility, and
volume 'through treatment; and
short-term effectiveness. Home than
one alternative can be cost-effec-
tive.
The determination of which cost-
effective alternative utilizes perma-
nent solutions and treatment to the
maximum extent practicable is a
risk management judgment made
by the decision maker who balances
the tradeoffs among; the alterna-
tive® with respect to the balancing;
criteria (and modifying; criteria to
the extent they are known). As a
general rule, those criteria that dis-
tinguish the alternatives the most
wiill be the most; decisive factors in
the balancing. See Exhibit 6 for at
summary of criteria likely to be im-
portant in certain site situations.
The alternative determined to pro-
vide the best balance of trade-off'!;,
as considered in light of the statu-
tory mandates and. preferences, as
well as the NCP goal and expecta-
tions,, is identified as the preferred
alternative and presented to the
public for comment in a Proposed
Plan.
Final Selection of Remedy
Upon receipt of public com-
ments, the preferred alternative is
reevaluated in light of any new in-
formation that, lias become avail-
able, including; State and commu-
nity acceptance, if previously un-
known. This new information should
be considered to determine whether
an option other than the preferred
alternative better fulfills the statu-
tory requirements. The decision-
maker's final judgmen (; is docu-
mented in a Record of Decision.
April 1990 - 5
-------
Exhibit l:i
EXAMPLES OF PROMINENT CRITERIA AND EXPECTATIONS
FOR SELECTED SITE SITUATIONS
Small iiren of high level* of toxic coiitaniinant.ii
(e.g., lagoon, hot npcrtji)
Highly mobile contaminant* (e.g., I iqiaidn, vo In-
lik-n, metal*)
Very large volunw of material contaminated
maronaUy above health-baaed level* (e.g., mine
tmlinjjii one order of nuigTUiude above: health-
ba»E*d lev el B in aoil)
Complex mixture of he!ten>fl,;erieouu wube
without discrete hot, npcitji (e.g., heterogeneous
municipal landfill wante)
l.i] ng- te rm a 1 1 ect i v« neiui ,
Reduction ol'Uiuidity , mobility, or vol-
ume through
IteHcluclion of inability through treat-
ment
Ini|}lE!in«ninbility,
Co irt
Impfeinentiibility,,
Short•• term «IIectiwnaui,
O:>st
Soilla contaminated with high concentrations Long-term
of VOCs Short-term
CoDtJBuniiutiBd pvnci ad «'iil,(!i-
Short-tenn
.1 iff .El.E;.!«i:E; UY
whem highly UIKJC
nul im n principal threal at « «it«
Treatment in prreferred when highly mobile
l in n principal thireiit at. a tit*
CoiaUinm*nl: mny dlbrdhL(jh level of long-term
offectivenoiiii; trentmeiit nuy be difficult to ir:i-
pleinient biENCiiiune of iiiiniflKient treatimerit en-
piicrit.y for 1 nrj[ to large noope
of nite
Tiientmenlt of h«terc^[eneoui wsuite often diffi-
cult or infeuibltt, re praiiurribe certain remedial
loir oirtiiui iiitaiLtionuii.
TN'B ipnKcMii WK mit in thin inemonindiunni ains imtendod iiciiiiy for tins «i»»faK» oCGcrriEirnnniint pcnionniell. Thny »™ nat. lintendMI, new cnn UhxEy be ra)i«d
, l» cTHiiti! any ri|[hlliii irriloi'c.snljl.i by any party in lhi(i(jiition with the U'niled Stalkni. El1 A afficuli may 4iicinfa h> fcilllow U>« iujj.lnricjr prorridM in thin
nniEfflnirundiuri. or to act alt runLiirtoe iriith Uhm prktuncE!, buns.! aa am iLttulyirin otfuyadtte niu ciiircniniitainicen. l\f-int>ty nelortian dksaiikmii uis nude and juntillicil an
a <:iui«iHi|pin:iflc hiuni, The Aicnnr)' aba raixnrvai th« right to dutnn« tttii pudanoi! at any taiini! without publk: nation.
6 - OSWER Directive 9355.0-27FS
------- |