CERCLA Section 121 (d)(2) specifies that on-site Superfund remedial actions shall attain "other Federal standards, requirements,
criteria, limitations, or more stringent State requirements that are determined to be legally applicable or relevant and appropriate (ARAR)
to the specified circumstances at the site." In addition, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) requires that on-site removal actions attain
ARARs to the extent practicable. Off-site removal and remedial actions must comply with legally applicable requirements. This guide
outlines the process used to determine whether the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal restrictions
(LDRs) established under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are "relevant and appropriate" to an on-site CERCLA
response action. (See Superfund LDR Guide #5 for determining when LDRs are applicable to CERCLA response actions.) The guide also
provides examples of when the LDRs are likely to be relevant and appropriate and when they are not. With respect to contaminated soil
and debris, EPA is undertaking a rulemaking to establish specific LDRs; until this rulemaking is completed, EPA generally will not
consider the LDRs to be relevant and appropriate for soil and debris contaminated with hazardous substances that are not RCRA
restricted wastes. More detailed guidance on Superfund compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER).

United States Office of Superfund Publication:

ci iv ii on mcniai i iotocti on o 01 iq vvciijio a no y / .0 u / r 0
Agency Emergency Response December 1989
&EPA
Superfund LDR Guide #7

Determining When Land Disposal

Restrictions (LDRs) Are Relevant

and Appropriate to CERCLA

Response Actions
LDR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE DETERMINATIONS
For on-site CERCLA responses that constitute placement,
and for which the LDRs have been determined not to be
applicable (i.e., the wastes being placed are not prohibited or
restricted RCRA wastes), site managers should evaluate whether
the LDRs are relevant and appropriate. As discussed in the
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws ManualfEPA. August 8,
1988), relevant and appropriate decisions require best
professional judgment of site-specific factors to determine
wether a requirement addresses problems or situations
sufficiently similar to the circumstances of the release, or
remedial action contemplated, and is well-suited to the site, and
therefore, is both relevant and appropriate.
Section 300.400(g)(2) of the proposed NCP [53 FR at 51436
(December 21, 1988)] outlines a number of factors pertaining to
CERCLA situations and potential ARARs which should be
compared to determine whether a requirement is both relevant
and appropriate. The four pertinent factors to compare when
evaluating the potential relevance and appropriateness of the
LDRs are: (1) the action or activities regulated by the
requirement (e.g., placement on the land) and the remedial action
contemplated; (2) the purpose of the requirement and the
purpose of the CERCLA action; (3) the substances regulated by
the requirement and the substances found at the CERCLA site;
and (4) the medium regulated or affected by the requirement and
the medium contaminated or affected at the CERCLA site. These
factors are evaluated to determine whether the circumstances
of the release and remedial action contemplated are such that
use of the LDR requirements is well-suited to CERCLA
response objectives.
The evaluation of the circumstances of a release is
conducted as part of the remedial investigation, during which
information is collected on contaminant sources, potential
routes of migration, and potential human and environmental
receptors of concern. The results of this effort (which is
ultimately documented in the site characterization and baseline
risk assessment chapters of the RI/FS report) are used to
establish remedial action objectives for the areas or media
contaminated at the site that pose a threat to human health and
the environment. The site-specific CERCLA response objectives
of the remedial action contemplated should be compared with
the purpose or objectives of the LDRs as a first step in
determining the potential relevance and appropriateness of the
LDRs [proposed NCP factors (a) and (e)].
The objective of LDRs is to achieve reductions in
the toxicity and/or mobility of a
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
hazardous waste, based on application of the best demonstrated
available technology (BDAT), prior to its land disposal. While
this objective will often be compatible with remedial alternatives
designed to destroy highly concentrated, toxic, and mobile
materials such as liquids, other remedial alternatives involving
treatment of the principal threats of a site may have different
objectives to which the LDRs are not well-suited.
Once a decision is made that achieving BDAT reductions
in the toxicity and/or mobility of a waste source is compatible
with CERCLA response objectives for the site, site managers
should utilize information on waste constituents and matrices
collected as part of the site characterization to evaluate whether
a CERCLA waste is "sufficiently similar" to a listed RCRA waste
code or family of waste codes (e.g., K048-K052, petroleum
refining wastes) such that the LDR standard for that waste code
is appropriate for the CERCLA waste.
In determining whether a CERCLA waste is sufficiently
similar, site managers should consider whether the BDAT used
to set the LDR standard would be effective for the CERCLA
waste. (Technologies other than those used to set the BDAT
standards may be considered, although they must be regarded
as capable of meeting the promulgated concentration
requirements.) Although a constituent-by-constituent analysis
is not necessary for relevant and appropriate determinations, a
general comparison of the waste constituents and matrices is
useful for identifying waste codes to which a CERCLA waste
may be similar, and therefore, helpful in the identification of
technologies that may be appropriate for consideration.
If a CERCLA waste that consists of a complex mixture of
several different wastes occurs in a different medium (e.g., soil)
or matrix (BDAT standards may be established for specified
matrices, such as wastewaters, nonwastewaters, or both) from
what is specified for a particular restricted waste code or
contains incompatible waste constituents, use of BDAT may not
be appropriate for that waste, and therefore, the LDRs
NOTE: If the LDRs are determined to be relevant and
appropriate requirements for a CERCLA action (i.e., there is
a close match between the CERCLA and the LDR
objectives, and a close match between the
constituents/matrix or the CERCLA waste and the
constituents/matrix of the relevant RCRA waste code), but
the treatment process involved in the remedy does not
achieve BDAT levels in the field as anticipated, a
Treatability Variance establishing alternate treatment levels
should be sought.
would not be relevant and appropriate [proposed NCP factor
(b)]. It has been the experience of the Superfund program that
Treatability Variances are frequently necessary for soil and
debris contaminated with a restricted RCRA waste (see
Superfund LDR Guide #6A), because the promulgated LDR
standards are based on treating less complex matrices of
industrial process wastes. As a logical corollary to this finding,
the Agency believes that LDRs generally would not be "relevant
and appropriate" requirements for soil and debris contaminated
with non-RCRA restricted wastes. However, the Agency plans
to undertake a rulemaking that will prescribe applicable
standards for the treatment of soil and debris contaminated with
RCRA-restricted wastes. In the future, these standards may be
relevant and appropriate to the treatment of soil and debris
contaminated with non-restricted wastes.
Examples illustrating the relevant and appropriate
determination process follow:
•	A number of drums containing hazardous wastes are
discovered during a site investigation. Although no
written documentation or specific knowledge of the source
is available to identify with certainty the origins of the
wastes, the laboratory analyses indicate that they contain
very high concentrations of a predominantly liquid waste
indicative of industrial waste streams. Therefore, maximum
destruction of the drum contents is established as the
remedial action objective. Due to the general similarity of
the bulk liquids to the spent solvents listed in the
F001-F005 waste codes, the CERCLA site manager
determines that use of incineration (one of the BDAT
identified in the solvent and dioxin rule for that family of
waste codes) would be technically suitable. Therefore, the
LDRs would be relevant and appropriate for an alternative
involving the treatment and placement of the drummed
waste.
•	A CERCLA waste mixture from an unknown source is
found to consist of wastes similar to F021
dioxin-containing wastes (i.e., they contain constituents
found in dioxin-containing wastes) and mercury. Because
use of incineration — the BDAT for dioxin-containing
wastes — would not be compatible with a waste also
containing mercury, application of the LDR treatment
standards to this waste mixture would not be appropriate.
Therefore, the LDRs would not be relevant and
appropriate to a CERCLA response involving the
placement of this waste mixture. (Alternate methods of
treating the waste might still be necessary to satisfy both
the CERCLA statutory requirement to utilize treatment to
the maximum extent practicable and the program
expectations that are outlined in the proposed NCP.)
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------