UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC"
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
m im
9355.7-04
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Dear Interested Party,
Thank you for requesting a copy of the directive, "Land Use
in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process" prepared by the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Our goal in issuing the
directive is to assist EPA's Regional offices in developing
reasonable assumptions regarding anticipated future land uses at
a Superfund site for use in the baseline risk assessment,
development of alternatives, and remedy selection process.
OSWER recognizes that this land use directive is a first in
a series of steps that EPA would like to take in addressing land
use at CERCLA sites. EPA has initiated several activities in an
effort to continue to examine critical land use issues, such as
industrial land uses, which will advance the Agency's ability to
address land uses other than residential in a reasonable manner.
Some of the activities EPA has initiated are:
•	Analysis of what other states and countries have done
to address/control risks posed by land uses other than
residential (e.g., Massachusetts activity use
limitations and Canada's use of a multiplier of
residential exposure assumptions to derive commercial
exposure assumptions);
•	Scoping of the types of tools needed to evaluate non-
residential uses, i.e., exposure factors for activities
associated with land uses other than residential and
determination of how activities and exposure
assumptions affect the risk assessment;
•	Development of a compendium of institutional controls
used to date in the Superfund program, lessons learned,
and the keys to effectiveness of the various
institutional controls;
•	Analysis to determine how land use controls function to
reduce risk, explore innovative practices for land use
controls, determine how institutional frameworks
control and guide land use, and explore whether and how
the federal government should get involved in
controlling land use; and,

JSU

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recyded Paper (40% Postconsumer)

-------
• Review of selected sites where future land use was an
issue with the community to identify lessons learned,
including techniques for issue resolution.
We believe that the results of these analyses will help EPA
to shape future land use guidances, as well as other guidances
and policy documents that touch upon land use issues.
If you have comments, suggestions, or questions regarding
any of these analyses or potential next steps for OSWER to take
concerning land use issues, please cotact me at the U.S.
.Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W. (MC 5203G),
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Sincerelv,
Sherri A. Clark
Remedial Operations and Guidance Branch

-------
•^10 SUr
f	\	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I	I	WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PROlfcC
MAY 2 5 1995
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Land Use in the £Ei^CLA Re^dy Selection Process
Elliott P. Laws
Assistant Admin
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 directive presents additional information for
considering land use in making remedy selection decisions under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) at National Priorities List (NPL) sites.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that
early community involvement, with a particular focus on the
community's desired future uses of property associated with the
CERCLA site, should result in a more democratic decisionmaking
process; greater community support for remedies selected as a
result of this process; and more expedited, cost-effective
cleanups.
The major points of this directive are:
• Discussions with local land use planning authorities,
appropriate officials, and the public, as appropriate,
should be conducted as early as possible in the scoping
phase of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS). This will assist EPA in understanding the
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled tlber

-------
2
reasonably anticipated future uses of the land on which
the Superfund site is located;
•	If the site is located in a community that is likely to
have environmental justice concerns, extra efforts
should be made to reach out to and consult with
segments of the community that are not necessarily
reached by conventional communication vehicles or
through local officials and planning commissions;
•	Remedial action objectives developed during the RI/FS
should reflect the reasonably anticipated future land
use or uses;
•	Future land use assumptions allow the baseline risk
assessment and the feasibility study to be focused on
developing practicable and cost effective remedial
alternatives. These alternatives should lead to site
activities which are consistent with the reasonably
anticipated future land use. However, there may be
reasons to analyze implications associated with
additional land uses;
•	Land uses that will be available following completion
of remedial action are determined as part of the remedy
selection process. During this process, the goal of
realizing reasonably anticipated future land uses is
considered along with other factors. Any combination
of unrestricted uses, restricted uses, or use for long-
term waste management may result.
Discussions with local land use authorities and other
locally affected parties to make assumptions about future land
use are also appropriate in the RCRA context. EPA recognizes
that RCRA facilities typically are industrial properties that are
actively managed, rather than the abandoned sites that are often
addressed under CERCLA. Therefore, consideration of non-
residential uses is especially likely to be appropriate for RCRA
facility cleanups. Decisions regarding future land use that are
made as part of RCRA corrective actions raise particular issues
for RCRA (e.g., timing, property transfers, and the viability of
long-term permit or other controls) in ensuring protection of
human health and the environment. EPA intends to address the
issue of future land use as it relates specifically to RCRA
facility cleanups in subsequent guidance and/or rulemakings.
This guidance is also relevant for Federal Facility sites.
Land use assumptions at sites that are undergoing base closure
may be different than at sites where a Federal agency will be
maintaining control of the facility. Most land management agency
sites will remain in Federal ownership after remedial actions.
In these cases, Forest Land Management Plans and other resource

-------
3
management guidelines may help develop reasonable assumptions
about future uses of the land. At all such sites, however, this
documen^ can focus the land use consideration toward appropriate
options.
Background:
Reasonably anticipated future use of the land at NPL sites
is an important consideration in determining the appropriate
extent of remediation. Future use of the land will affect the
types of exposures and the frequency of exposures that may occur
to any residual contamination remaining on the site, which in
turn affects the nature of the remedy chosen. On the other hand,
the alternatives selected through the National Oil and Hazardous
Substance Contingency Plan (NCP) [55 Fed. Reg. 8666, March 8,
1990] process for CERCLA remedy selection determine the extent to
which hazardous constituents remain at the site, and therefore
affect subsequent available land and ground water uses.
The NCP preamble specifically discusses land use assumptions
regarding the baseline risk assessment. The baseline risk
assessment provides the basis for taking a remedial action at a
Superfund site and supports the development of remedial action
objectives. Land use assumptions affect the exposure pathways
that are evaluated in the baseline risk assessment. Current land
use is critical in determining whether there is a current risk
associated with a Superfund site, and future land use is
important in estimating potential future threats. The results of
the risk assessment aid in determining the degree of remediation
necessary to ensure long-term protection at NPL sites.
EPA has been criticized for too often assuming that future
use will be residential. In many cases, residential use is the
least restricted land use and where human activities are
associated with the greatest potential for exposures. This
directive is intended to facilitate future remedial decisions at
NPL sites by outlining a public process and sources of
information which should be considered in developing reasonable
assumptions regarding future land use.
This directive expands on discussions provided in the
preamble to the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency
Plan (NCP); "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol. I, Human
Health Evaluation Manual" (Part A) (EPA/540/1-89/002, Dec. 1989);
"Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility
Studies Under CERCLA" (OSWER Directive 9355.3-01, Oct. 1988); and
Federal agency responsibility under CERCLA 120(h)(3),
which relates to additional clean up which may be required to
allow for unrestricted use of the property, is not addressed in
this guidance.

-------
4
"Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy-
Selection Decisions" (OSWER Directive 9355.0-30, April 22, 1991).
This land use directive may have the most relevance in
situations where surface soil is the primary exposure pathway.
Generally, where soil contamination is impacting ground water,
protection of the ground water may drive soil cleanup levels.
Consideration of future ground water use for CERCLA sites is not
addressed in this document. There are separate expectations
established for ground water in the NCP rule section 300.430
(a) (1) (iii) (F) that "EPA expects to return usable ground waters
to their beneficial uses wherever practicable, within a timeframe
that is reasonable given the particular circumstances of the
site."
Objective
This directive has two primary objectives. First, this
directive promotes early discussions with local land use planning
authorities, local officials, and the public regarding reasonably
anticipated future uses of the property on which an NPL site is
located. Second, this directive promotes the use of that
information to formulate realistic assumptions regarding future
land use and clarifies how these assumptions fit in and influence
the baseline risk assessment, the development of alternatives,
and the CERCLA remedy selection process.
Implementation
The approach in this guidance is meant to be considered at
current and future sites in the RI/FS pipeline, to the extent
possible. This directive is not intended to suggest that
previous remedy selection decisions should be re-opened.
Developing Assumptions About Future Land Use
In order to ensure use of realistic assumptions regarding
future land uses at a site, EPA should discuss reasonably
anticipated future uses of the site with local land use planning
authorities, local officials, and the public, as appropriate, as
early as possible during the scoping phase of the RI/FS. EPA
should gain an understanding of the reasonably anticipated future
land uses at a particular Superfund site to perform the risk
assessment and select the appropriate remedy.
A visual inspection of the site and its surrounding area is
a good starting point in developing assumptions regarding future
land use. Discussions with the local land use authorities and
appropriate officials should follow. Discussions with the public
can be accomplished through a public meeting and/or other means.
By developing realistic assumptions based on information gathered
from these sources early in the RI/FS process, EPA may develop

-------
5
remedial alternatives that are consistent with the anticipated
future use.
The development of assumptions regarding the reasonably-
anticipated future land use should not become an extensive,
independent research project. Site managers should use existing
information to the extent possible, much of which will be
available from local land use planning authorities. Sources and
types of information that may aid EPA in determining the
reasonably anticipated future land use include, but are not
limited to:
•	Current land use
•	Zoning laws
•	Zoning maps
•	Comprehensive community master plans
•	Population growth patterns and projections (e.g.,
Bureau of Census projections)
•	Accessibility of site to existing infrastructure (e.g.,
transportation and public utilities)
•	Institutional controls currently in place
•	Site location in relation to urban, residential,
commercial, industrial, agricultural and recreational
areas
•	Federal/State land use designation (Federal/State
control over designated lands range from established
uses for the general public, such as national parks or
State recreational areas, to governmental facilities
providing extensive site access restrictions, such as
Department of Defense facilities
•	Historical or recent development patterns
- • Cultural factors (e.g., historical sites, Native
American religious sites)
•	Natural resources information
•	Potential vulnerability of ground water to contaminants
that might migrate from soil
•	Environmental justice issues
•	Location of on-site or nearby wetlands
•	Proximity of site to a floodplain
•	Proximity of site to critical habitats of endangered or
threatened species
•	Geographic and geologic information
•	Location of Wellhead Protection areas, recharge areas,
and other areas identified in a State's Comprehensive
Ground-water Protection Program
These types of information should be considered when
developing the assumptions aboiit future land use. Interaction
with the public, which includes all stakeholders affected by the
site, should serve to increase the certainty in the assumptions
made regarding future land use at an NPL site and increase the

-------
6
confidence expectations about anticipated future land use are, in
fact, reasonable.
For example, future industrial land use is likely to be a
reasonable assumption where a site is currently used for
industrial purposes, is located in an area where the surroundings
are zoned for industrial use, and the comprehensive plan predicts
the site will continue to be used for industrial purposes.
Communi tv Involvement
NPL sites are located in diverse areas of the country, with
great variability in land use planning practices. For some NPL
sites, the future land use of a site may have been carefully
considered through local, public, participatory, planning
processes, such as zoning hearings, master plan approvals or
other vehicles. When this is the case, local residents around
the Superfund site are likely to demonstrate substantial
agreement with the local land use planning authority on the
future use of the property. Where there is substantial agreement
among local residents and land use planning agencies, owners and
developers, EPA can rely with a great deal of certainty on the
future land use already anticipated for the site. For other NPL
sites, however, the absence or nature of a local planning process
may yield considerably less certainty about what assumptions
regarding future use are reasonable. In some instances the local
residents near the Superfund site may feel disenfranchised from
the local land use planning and development process. This may be
an especially important issue where there are concerns regarding
environmental justice in the neighborhood around the NPL site.
Consistent with the principle of fairness, EPA should make an
extra effort to reach out to the local community to establish
appropriate future land use assumptions at such sites.
Land Use &««nniptions in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Future land use assumptions allow the baseline risk
assessment and the feasibility study to focus on the development
of practicable and cost-effective remedial alternatives, leading
to site activities which are consistent with the reasonably
anticipated future land use.
The baseline risk assessment generally needs only to
consider the reasonably anticipated future land use,- however, it
may be valuable to evaluate risks associated with other land
uses. The NCP preamble (55 Fed. Reg. 8710) states that in the
baseline risk assessment, more than one future land use
assumption may be considered when decision makers wish to
understand the implications of unexpected exposures. Especially
where there is some uncertainty regarding the anticipated future
land use, it may be useful to compare the potential risks
associated with several land use scenarios to estimate the impact

-------
7
on human health and the environment should the land use
unexpectedly change. The magnitude of such potential impacts may-
be an important consideration in determining whether and how
institutional controls should be used to restrict future uses.
If the baseline risk assessment evaluates a future use under
which exposure is limited, it will not serve the traditional
role, evaluating a "no action" scenario. A remedy, i.e.
institutional controls to limit future exposure, will be required
to protect human health and the environment. In addition to
analyzing human health exposure scenarios associated with certain
land uses, ecological exposures may also need to be considered.
Developing Remedial Action Objectives
Remedial action objectives provide the foundation upon which
remedial cleanup alternatives are developed. In general.
remedial action objectives should be developed in order to
develop alternatives that would achieve cleanup levels associated
with the reasonably anticipated future land use over as much of
the site as possible. EPA recognizes, however, that achieving
either the reasonably anticipated land use, or the land use
preferred by the community, may not be practicable across the
entire site, or in some cases, at all. For example, as RI/FS
data become available, they may indicate that the remedial
alternatives under consideration for achieving a level of cleanup
consistent with the reasonably anticipated future land use are
not cost-effective nor practicable. If this is the case, the
remedial action objective may be revised which may result in
different, more reasonable land use(s).
EPA's remedy selection expectations described in section
300.430(a)(1)(iii) of the NCP should also be considered when
developing remedial action objectives. Where practicable, EPA
expects to treat principal threats, to use engineering controls
such as containment for low-level threats, to use institutional
controls to supplement engineering controls, to consider the use
of innovative technology, and to return usable ground waters to
beneficial uses to protect human health and the environment.
(Some types of applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) define protective cleanup levels which may,
in turn, influence post-remediation land use potential.)
In cases where the future land use is relatively certain,
the remedial action objective generally should reflect this land
use. Generally, it need not include alternative land use
scenarios unless, as discussed above, it is impracticable to
provide a protective remedy that allows for that use. A landfill
site is an example where it is highly likely that the future land
use will remain unchanged (i.e., long-term waste management
area), given the NCP's expectation that treatment of high volumes
of waste generally will be impracticable and the fact that EPA's
presumptive remedy for landfills is containment. In such a case,

-------
8
a remedial action objective could be established with a very high
degree of certainty to reflect the reasonably anticipated future
land use.
In cases where the reasonably anticipated future land use is
highly uncertain, a range of the reasonably likely future land
uses should be considered in developing remedial action
objectives. These likely future land uses can be reflected by
developing a range of remedial alternatives that will achieve
different land use potentials. The remedy selection process will
determine which alternative is most appropriate for the site and,
consequently, the land use(s) available following remediation.
As discussed in "Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in
Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions" (OSWER Directive 9355.0-30,
April 22, 1991), EPA has established a risk range for carcinogens
within which EPA strives to manage site risks. EPA recognizes
that a specific cleanup level within the acceptable risk range
may be associated with, mc^re than one land use (e.g., an
industrial cleanup to 10 may also allow for residential use at
a 10" risk level.) It is not EPA's intent that the risk range
be partitioned into risk standards based solely on categories of
land use (e.g., with residential cleanups at the 10 level and
industrial cleanups at the 10 risk level.) Rather, the risk
range provides the necessary flexibility to address the technical
and cost limitations, and the performance and risk uncertainties
inherent in all waste remediation efforts.
Land Use Considerations in Remedy Selection
As a result of the comparative analysis of alternatives with
respect to EPA's nine evaluation criteria, EPA selects a site-
specific remedy. The remedy determines the cleanup levels, the
volume of contaminated material to be treated, and the volume of
contaminated material to be contained. Consequently, the remedy
selection decision determines the size of the area that can be
returned to productive use and the particular types of uses that
will be possible following remediation.
The volume and concentration of contaminants left on-site,
and thus the degree of residual risk at a site, will affect
future land use. For example, a remedial alternative may include
leaving in place contaminants in soil at concentrations
protective for industrial exposures, but not protective for
residential exposures. In this case, institutional controls
should be used to ensure that industrial use of the land is
maintained and to prevent risks from residential exposures.
Conversely, a remedial alternative may result in no waste left in
place and allow for unrestricted use (e.g., residential use).

-------
9
Results of Remedy Selection Process
Several potential land use situations could result from
EPA's remedy selection decision. They are:
•	The remedy achieves cleanup levels that allow the
entire site to be available for the reasonably
anticipated future land use in the baseline risk
assessment (or, where future land use is uncertain, all
uses that could reasonably be anticipated).
•	The remedy achieves cleanup levels that allow most, but
not all, of the site to be available for the reasonably
anticipated future land use. For example, in order to
be cost effective and practicable, the remedy may
require creation of a long-term waste management area
for containment of treatment residuals or low-level
waste on a small portion of the site. The cleanup
levels in this portion of the site might allow for a
more restricted land use.
•	The remedy achieves cleanup levels that require a more
restricted land use than the reasonably anticipated
future land use for the entire site. This situation
occurs when no remedial alternative that is cost-
effective or practicable will achieve the cleanup
levels consistent with the reasonably anticipated
future land use. The site may still be used for
productive purposes, but the use would be more
restricted than the reasonably anticipated future land
use. Furthermore, the more restricted use could be a
long-term waste management area over all or a portion
of the site.
Institutional Controls
If any remedial alternative developed during the FS will
require a restricted land use in order to be protective, it is
essential that the alternative include components that will
ensure that it remain protective. In particular, institutional
controls will generally have to be included in the alternative to
prevent an unanticipated change in land use that could result in
unacceptable exposures to residual contamination, or, at a
minimum, alert future users to the residual risks and monitor for
any changes in use. In such cases, institutional controls will
play a key role in ensuring long-term protectiveness and should
be evaluated and implemented with the same degree of care as is
given to other elements of the remedy. In developing remedial
alternatives that include institutional controls, EPA should
determine: the type of institutional control to be used, the
existence of the authority to implement the institutional
control, and the appropriate entity's resolve and ability to

-------
10
implement the institutional control. An alternative may-
anticipate two or more options for establishing institutional
controls, but should fully evaluate all such options. A variety
of institutional controls may be used such as deed restrictions
and deed notices, and adoption of land use controls by a local
government. These controls either prohibit certain kinds of site
uses or, at a minimum, notify potential owners or land users of
the presence of hazardous substances remaining on site at levels
that are not protective for all uses. Where exposure must be
limited to assure protectiveness, a deed notice alone generally
will not provide a sufficiently protective remedy. While the ROD
need not always specify the precise type of control to be
imposed, sufficient analysis should be shown in the FS and ROD to
support a conclusion that effective implementation of
institutional controls can reasonably be expected.
Suppose, for example, that a selected remedy will be
protective for industrial land use and low levels of hazardous
substances will remain on site. An industry may still be able to
operate its business with the selected remedy in place.
Institutional controls, however, generally will need to be
established to ensure the land is not used for other, less
restricted purposes, such as residential use, or to alert
potential buyers of any remaining contamination.
Future Changes in Land Use
Where waste is left on-site at levels that would require
limited use and restricted exposure, EPA will conduct reviews at
least every five years to monitor the site for any changes. Such
reviews should analyze the implementation and effectiveness of
institutional controls with the same degree of care as other
parts of the remedy. Should land use change, it will be
necessary to evaluate the implications of that change for the
selected remedy, and whether the remedy remains protective.
EPA's role in any subsequent 'additional cleanup will be
determined on a site-specific basis. If landowners or others
decide at a future date to change the land use in such a way that
makes further cleanup necessary to ensure protectiveness, CERCLA
does not prevent them from conducting such a cleanup as long as
protectiveness of the remedy is not compromised. (EPA may invoke
CERCLA section 122 (e) (6), if necessary, to prevent actions that
are inconsistent with the original remedy.) In general, EPA
would not expect to become involved actively in the conduct or
oversight of such cleanups. EPA, however, retains its authority
to take further response action where necessary to ensure
protectiveness.

-------
11
Further Information
If you have any questions concerning this directive, please
call Sherri Clark at 703-603-9043.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this memorandum are intended
solely as guidance. They are not intended, nor can they be
relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in
litigation with the United States. EPA officials may decide to
follow the guidance provided in this memorandum, or to act at
variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of specific site
circumstances. Remedy selection decisions are made and justified
on a case-specific basis. The Agency also reserves the right to
change this guidance at any time without public notice.

-------