UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 19 1995
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 9200.4-14
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Consistent Implementation of the FY 1993 Guidance on
Technical Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration
at Superfund Sites
FROM:	Henry L. Longest II, Director /s/
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
TO:	Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, VIII, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Director, Environmental Services Division
Regions I, VI, VII
Purpose
This memorandum addresses implementation of the OSWER
guidance entitled "Guidance for Evaluating the Technical
Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration," dated September,
19931. As you recall, the purpose of the guidance is to clarify how
to determine when ARAR-based cleanup levels may be waived for
reasons of technical impracticability.
The purpose of this memorandum is to:
S Promote national consistency in technical impracticability
(TI) decision making;
S Facilitate transfer of information pertinent to TI decisions
between Headquarters and the Regions;
S Identify the appropriate persons to conduct reviews of TI-
related documents; and
^xts^
ys&j
\w/
xOSWER Publication 9234.2-25
Word-searchable Version - Not a true copy

-------
- Clarify the role of Headquarters consultation.
Background
Ground-water contamination, confirmed at 85 percent of
National Priorties List sites, continues to be of critical
importance to the Superfund program. The remediation of the most
highly contaminated sites, however, such as those with DNAPLs,
presents both technical and policy challenges. While EPA remains
firmly committed to restoring contaminated ground water to
beneficial uses at Superfund sites, it is also important to
recognize that technical limitations to achieving this goal may
exist.
The goal of ground-water cleanup at Superfund sites continues
to be restoration of contaminated ground water to ARAR based
cleanup levels wherever technically practicable. However,
evaluations of "pump and treat" remedies published by EPA in 1989
and 1992 indicated that complete restoration of many ground-water
contamination sites in the Superfund program might not be
technically practicable with available remediation technologies due
to the presence of non-recoverable DNAPLs, or for other reasons
related to complex site hydrogeology or contaminant
characteristics. Where such factors constrain ground-water
restoration, the Superfund program's approach is to emphasize
removal or treatment of source materials; containment of non-
restorable source areas; and restoration of aqueous contaminant
plumes.
The National Research Council's recently released report
"Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup" independently confirmed
EPA's findings that available ground-water remediation technologies
are limited in their ability to restore all portions of
contaminated ground-water sites. However, the NRC report also
pointed out that, despite these constraints: 1) Non-restorable
areas at complex sites generally constitute relatively small
portions of the overall ground-water contamination problem; and 2)
Pump and treat and other technologies are capable of restoring
large portions of such sites, and of providing significant
environmental benefits. The NRC report is therefore consistent with
the current Superfund approach to ground-water remediation.
The close scrutiny of EPA's approach to ground-water cleanup,
evidenced during the Superfund reauthorization debate and in the
NRC report, illustrates the importance of sound implementation of
ground-water cleanup. Therefore, there is a great deal of attention
being placed on how EPA implements the technical impracticability
guidance. The TI guidance clarifies Superfund ground-water policy,
and provides direction for collecting, analyzing, and presenting
the information needed to determine whether restoration of
contaminated ground water is
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
2

-------
technically impracticable.
A typical TI "evaluation" should consist of a concise stand
alone report, or a section in a site characterization document such
as an RI/FS. Reviews of TI evaluations will require site-specific
decisions regarding data sufficiency, the methods of data analysis,
and the selection of appropriate alternative remedial strategies
where total restoration is technically impracticable. Each of these
facets of a TI decision is potentially complex and resource
intens ive.
Technical impracticability decisions may be made as soon as
sufficient information is available to demonstrate that such a
finding is appropriate. From a practical perspective, this
generally will be at one of three points in the remediation
decision process:
-	A "front-end" decision made at the time of the ROD, based on
site characterization and feasibility study data alone;
-	A decision made at the time of the ROD, but based in part on
pilot test or early remedial action performance; or
-	A post-ROD decision based on a pilot test or a ground-water
restoration remedy's performance.
Note that front-end TI decisions will require very thorough
site characterization and feasibility study analyses, and generally
will be appropriate at sites with severe contamination problems
(e.g., non-recoverable NAPL contamination in complex geologic
environments such as heterogeneous soil deposits or fractured
bedrock). The TI guidance provides recommendations for the types of
site data and data analyses generally needed for front-end TI
evaluations.
The guidance also highlights the usefulness of a phased
approach to ground-water remediation that employs early actions
(e.g., source removal, source containment, or plume containment)
because such actions not only reduce site risks, but may also be
used to provide more accurate data on which to base subsequent
decisions concerning the restoration potential of the site.
Obj ective
The objective of this memo is
nationally consistent implementati
impracticability guidance. Spe
points of contact in Headquart
information and for document r
identify a person or persons a
reviews; and 3) Outlines a bas
documents.
to promote technically sound,
on of the technical
ly, this memo: 1) Establishes
transfer of TI related
2) Requests that the Regions
s of contact on TI issues and
ess for evaluating TI decision
cifical
ers for
eviews;
s point
ic proc
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
3

-------
Implementation
Communications and Points of Contact
Regional managers, in consultation with Headquarters, may make
a significant number of TI decisions during the remainder of FY 95
and beyond. Reviews may be resource intensive, and require input
from several different sources. To help facilitate these reviews,
to assist the involved offices in planning for their respective
resource commitments, and to help monitor the progress of guidance
implementation, we are promoting regular, periodic communication
among points of contact to be established in the Regions,
Headquarters, and ORD.
Regional Point of Contact. A point of contact (either a person
or small team of individuals) should be identified within each
Region to serve as a source of information on the TI guidance to
regional staff. Where appropriate, the contacts will assist RPMs,
ORC attorneys, and other staff by referring them to support
personnel (e.g., in-house or ORD technical specialists) for
additional assistance. This person or team would also provide a
valuable communication link between Headquarters, ORD, and the
Region to facilitate the transfer of information regarding TI
decisions.
The regional contact person (or team) may be a member(s) of
the technical support staff or other person(s) knowledgeable in
both the technical and policy aspects of ground-water remediation.
For example, several members of the regional Ground Water Forum
have-expressed an interest in being the point of contact, as the
Forum was actively involved in the development of the TI guidance.
The names of the Ground Water Forum members in the Superfund
program are provided at the end of this memorandum.
Please provide the name or names of the regional contact
persons to me through Peter Feldman of the Hazardous Site Control
Division by February 24r 1995.
Headquarters Contacts. The current OERR point of contact for
Tl-related issues and consultations is Peter Feldman of the
Hazardous Site Control Division (703-603-8768). The OERR contact
will assist in the review of TI evaluations, provide a national
perspective on similar decisions, and coordinate Headquarters
consultations. The OERR point of contact may also be reached
through other Headquarters Regional Coordinators, who will be
assisting in the implementation of this guidance.
The current OGC point of contact is George Wyeth (202-260-
7726). The OGC may be consulted on an as-needed basis to evaluate
any statutory or regulatory concerns.
ORD Contacts. ORD laboratories can provide specialized,
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
4

-------
site-specific technical support in a number of areas related to TI
evaluations. The laboratories, through the Technical Support
Project, offer the Regions consultation services by scientists with
experience in site characterization and remediation. Review of
technical impracticability evaluations may require skills in such
specialized areas as computer modeling and bioremediation; the
support services offered by ORD may prove crucial in determining
the technical merit of such TI evaluations. The appropriate general
contact for TI issues and site-specific consultations is Don
Draper, Director of the Technical Support Program at the R.S. Kerr
Laboratory in Ada, OK (405-436-8603) .
Conference Calls. Regular communication between the points of
contact will be established to share information and experience
related to implementing the TI guidance, and to assist ORD and
Headquarters to plan for the volume of TI reviews that may be
required. This will be implemented through a bimonthly or quarterly
conference call in which all the Regional, ORD, and Headquarters
points of contact will participate, with limited space for other
interested parties. The precise format of this communication system
will be determined in an initial conference call, once the points
of contact have been identified. OERR will coordinate the
conference call; the initial call will be conducted in early March,
1995 .
TI Decision Review Process
Decisions regarding TI ARAR waivers will be made by the
Regional Administrator or Division Director, as appropriate, based
on recommendations provided by ORD, Regional, and Headquarters
reviewers.
The TI review team. TI decisions generally will require a
significant amount of review, particularly from a technical
perspective, but also from legal and policy perspectives. A
Regionally-led team should be established to review TI waiver
evaluations from PRPs, as well as those developed by EPA or the
State. Based on experience gained on reviews of TI evaluations by
Regional staff to date, the review team generally includes the
following:
RPM and first line supervisor;
ORC site attorney;
Ground-water specialist (ORD and/or a Regional scientist);
State representative (as appropriate)
Regional ROD peer reviewer (where available);
HQ OERR representative;
HQ OGC representative (on an as-needed basis); and
Human health and ecological risk assessors (as appropriate)
Representatives from ORD, OERR, and OGC will either be the
points of contact discussed above, or other individuals who will
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
5

-------
be designated on a site-specific basis. The ORD reviewer will
assist the Region in assessing the technical merits of specificTI
evaluations; the Headquarters reviewers will provide the Region
with the national perspective on TI decisions and provide
assistance on legal or programmatic issues.
Review Process. The review process generally will consist of
the following steps:
1. Technical review by the review team members to determine
whether the TI evaluation is sufficiently complete, and
whether it provides a technically sound justification for
invoking the TI waiver. The evaluation should be revised based
on review team comments until it meets these criteria.
2.	Consultation with the Director of the Hazardous Site Control
Division of Headquarters OERR.
3.	Regional decision on the waiver, which is then generally
incorporated into a ROD or ROD amendment. The TI evaluation
should also be entered into the Administrative Record.
Scheduling Reviews. As TI reviews may require detailed
evaluation of technical materials, a sufficient amount of time
(four to eight weeks) should be built into the project schedule to
permit Regional, ORD, and Headquarters participants to conduct
thorough reviews.
Headquarters Consultation. The ROD consultation process, begun
in 1985, fosters communication between the Regions and Headquarters
on implementation of key aspects of the Superfund program.
Consultation on TI ARAR waivers in RODs, which was identified in
the Twenty Fifth Remedy Delegation Report (October 1993), will
continue to be OERR policy. The consultation will be for RODs, ROD
amendments, and ESDs invoking a TI ARAR waiver.
Consultation on TI ARAR waivers is intended to provide the
Regions with a national perspective on similar decisions, and to
identify any potentially significant precedent-setting issues at
particular sites. This input should prove useful to Regional
decision makers because relatively few sites have been through the
TI review process; in addition, there are a number of technical and
enforcement concerns that are likely to factor into site-specific
decisions that also will be of interest to the national program.
Where an appropriate team has been involved throughout the
review process leading up to the consultation, it is anticipated
that the consultation will be relatively brief. The Headquarters
contact within OERR (Peter Feldman) or the OERR Regional
Coordinator should therefore be notified as early as possible of
any impending TI waiver decision so as to expedite the review and
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
6

-------
consultation process.
For further information regarding the technical impracticability
guidance and review process, please contact Peter Feldman of my
staff at (703) 603-8768.
cc: Elliott P.Laws, Assistant Administrator
Timothy Fields, Jr., Deputy Assistant Administrator
Regional Superfund Section and Branch Chiefs
OSWER Office Directors
Clint Hall, ORD/RSKERL
Lisa Friedman, OGC
Bruce Diamond, OSRE
Regional Ground Water Forum (Superfund):
Region I:	Yoon-Jean Choi, Dick Willey
Region II:	Alison Hess, Ruth Izraeli, Kevin Willis
Region III: Nancy Cichowicz, Kathy Davies, Dave Kargbo
Region IV:	Tony Best, Ralph Howard; Diane Guthrie
ESD), Kay Wischkaemper (GWP)
Region V:	Luanne Vanderpool, Doug Yeskis; Steve
Mangion (ORD)
Region VI:	Bert Gorrod
Region VII: Bill Pedicino
Region VIII: Darcy Campbell, Paul Osborne
Region IX:	Richard Freitas, Herb Levine
Region X:	Howard Orlean; Rene Fuentes (ESD), Bernard
Zavala (ESD)
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
7

-------