OSUJ^K 
 
 f355. 
 
 property of 
 
 hwric library 
 
 United States Office of 
 
 Environmental Protection Solid Waste and 
 
 Agency Emergency Response 
 
 e^EPA 
 
 DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9355.0 -1 9 
 
 TITLE: Inter im Guidance on Supertund 
 
 Selection of Remedy 
 
 APPROVAL DATE: December 24, 1986 
 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 24, 1936 
 
 ORIGINATING OFFICE: 
 
 3 FINAL 
 □ DRAFT 
 STATUS: 
 
 reference (other documents): 
 
 EHKman 
 
 E7J«- 
 
 os W£/f OS W£ff OS WE ft 
 'E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE D 
 
 
Hazardous Waste Research 
 and Information Center 
 Library 
 
 One East Hazelwood Drive 
 Champaign, IL 61820 
 217/333-8957 
 
 OtMCO 
 
2 3 
 
 ^EPA 
 
 United States Environmental Protection Agency 
 
 Washington, DC 20460 
 
 OSWER Directive Initiation Request 
 
 1 Directive Number 
 
 9355.0 -19 
 
 2. Originaiof Information 
 
 
 Name of Contact Persor 
 
 Betsy STiaw 
 
 "iJfi'-llsE 
 
 Office 
 
 OERR, HSCD 
 
 Telephone Number 
 
 (202) 382-3304 
 
 3 Title 
 
 Interim Guidance on 
 
 Superfund 
 
 Selection of Remedy 
 
 
 4 Summary of Directive ilnelude bntf statement of purpose! 
 
 
 
 Provides interim guidance regarding implementation ot SARA 
 cleanup standards provisions. Highlighting new requirements 
 and emphasis in the RI/FS and ROD process. 
 
 5' ^ CERCLA, Reauthorization Implementation, 
 
 Remedial, SARA 
 
 6a Does this Directive Supersede Previous Directivefs)? [J Yes 
 
 1 No What directive (number, title! 
 
 b Does It Supplement Previous Directivefs)? Q Yes [3 No 
 
 What Directive (number. tit!e! 
 
 
 7 Draft Level 
 
 S) A — Signed by AA/DAA 8 — Signed by Office Director C — For Review & Comment GD In Development 
 
 This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format 
 
 8 Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator 
 
 Date 
 
 9 Name and Titl^f Approving Official 
 
 J. Winston Porter, AA/OSWER 
 
 Date 
 
 12/24/86 
 
 OSWER OSWER OSWEf 
 DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE 
 

 
 7 
 
 
 1' 
 
 >-* —gw— »■> ■ ■ ■ 
 
 > • »|4 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 •4 • 
 
 IftSSiS^Jl _ 
 
 .jMl-’O 
 
 AJft 
 
 
 
 A ii\- HQii*3*^iwfaiJ;i8ii ^'^^’*•*12^- itiai 
 
 ® tr Q*^' H-; -"■ ^ V 
 
 r -JbgwX^^HI. - — - — ~— — “ ^-.K^— 
 
 I 
 
 OlAfc **'<1^ - RC4ji<;-/'5^^i'V4» na-L? A»s 'i7Sb'-> *1 5Jli,' -.rj3i 
 
 -■ :- —• .. 4: ? ^ - 
 
 tTffl! - tJJi 
 
 ■ I 1 
 
 ..rWV—•<rw'‘^Pi^- w^«w^ 
 
 jtoTgy ■ gi» KJ ■i'' ^', 
 
 v^-kw »vim ' fl 
 
 I ‘».0^ - ’■' ■' ivt* Tj 
 
 □ 
 
 iryt ^ _ 
 
 »re»» 
 
 
 <1 
 
 tr!i*«W0:- • *',' i( 
 
 ' f- J^’‘'' 'i''-’?^ \ Si -rJo!' 
 
 v„^r -• *rt '-.I ►•'•J' 
 
 "t^ 
 
 '^rrgt;;r7;. 
 
 *”'" 't# t’ -’'O*' i!5i ’ ■'- ' “ 
 
 > \»i 4 * ' 1 
 
 - 1 ^ ^ — 
 
 **Ti 
 
 
 
 ‘ Zx 
 
 
 ?■<*■ • 
 
 ■j ^ 
 
 VV 
 
 ♦ • Ji'J ' 
 
 • r. • 
 

 A 
 
 
 
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
 WASHINGTON, D C. 20460 
 
 DEC 2A SBB 
 
 OFFICE OF 
 
 SOLID WASTE A,\0 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 
 
 9355.0 -19 
 
 MEMORANDUM 
 
 SUBJECT: Interim Guidan^ on Superfund Selection ot Remedy 
 
 FROM: J. Win^on'Porte'r 
 
 Assistant Administrator 
 
 TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I - X 
 
 Regional Counsel, Regions I - X 
 Director, Waste Management Division 
 Regions I, IV, V, VII, and VIII 
 
 Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division 
 Region II 
 
 Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division 
 Regions III and VI 
 
 Director, Toxics and Waste Management Division 
 Region IX 
 
 Director, Hazardous Waste Division 
 Region X 
 
 Environmental Services Division Directors 
 Regions I, VI, and VII 
 
 Introduction 
 
 Section 121 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 
 Act (SARA) addresses the cleanup standards for Supertund remedial 
 actions. While the new statute retains the basic components of 
 the existing Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 
 and Record of Decision (ROD) process, the §121 provisions add 
 some new requirements and special emphasis to certain issues. 
 
 This guidance is intended to aid Regions in selecting remeaial 
 actions pending the Agency's upcoming revision ot the National 
 Contingency Plan (NCP). 
 
 This guidance memorandum builds on the transition guidance 
 issued October 24, 1986 ("Implementation Strategy for Reauthorized 
 Superfund: Short Term Priorities for Action," OSWER Directive 
 
 9200.3-02) and elaborates on the guidance related to implementation 
 of selection of remedy requirements outlined at the Superfuna 
 Implementation Meeting of Novemoer 19 - 20, 1986. 
 

 
 
 e^) 
 
 ■•o J>' '."f 
 
 #• .ic Ck'* >'<i 
 
 Pi-fi.er’i'i 
 
 « ■’ 
 
 1 «B » S ® 
 
 t; 
 
 
 
 
 •^I'fticsii i' ri'» ?vi<il»B biiu^'S'* 
 
 -.. C a& ?fV/'#bl£w W4x»;^nj tTD3L8tJ^. , 
 ^ ' 1 :*- 
 fi.'t'i . n MQA1 
 
 ^ •'.•i t/- A p I »iD^ 5n^i»i«1kA . '/ 
 
 y ^ 
 
 i'V:»:t'^H V «ir(b? ' lAnoip»« 
 
 X - I■ »noi ^<1 ''■ » I ;> ft n'T' fano^g.yi 
 JtO*tijyj;! '«rr»»’rf«9^aAf' 'jmj>W ♦’ioil)^|ldr 
 
 Itr-- one ,:ts. ,v . \M erroAP^J? ^,vl' ' 
 
 icir'iO C=«nc->ie‘' .U;C'>iT»ifft r-H* 75W«»D''^3 
 
 7f 
 
 r.1 b'.T ■•• '!' \i-rt\:..i, »'AVt • xuC ^‘f 1 ^ 
 
 JV Gn4 in eadf#/f 
 
 'f ..rt?-' br»ft ’ ' - 
 
 " ^ %‘i nolfSi!? 
 
 .:v/l<vi MO »Je&W 4,■iioiiO'6'llO, , 
 
 ■"■- ■'%,. - ^ noi^Y' 
 
 i^oj'5*^:' il0 fiojaivfo eabivi^c 
 
 . ; JIV one » jv >, r 
 
 : / 
 
 r.tfi 3!>Mb01j? Pl 
 
 .■; ’A*. I 1. nn* bnylioQufc io Hl 'mLi^dZ 
 
 lAM iMRr^r , -ie^ a. ' un8AfD ’4rid t«B»8ibb£i, 33A 
 
 ' bj-• 4 .,*^ 4 >i»e w' *-1 -in* ann.-*-i w»r» %<1J •XirlW. rBAd 
 
 \8A\l4i y , • i.4^' ifis"?vnorjs^:3aevnl la; ^ 
 
 t*t'8 - lOOH? oolaiDjlCt' 30‘, b'aot>»H bfiJi* 
 
 1.^ ’ .o 4|^ ^ l£.i 08^11 bnB a3f»ft.8iii/p»7 woo eindS’ 
 
 . Aiotfij ol aruiciBW r.j> oJ bsbnoJpl sparolwQ^ i /(IT , 
 
 Ifrnone.- >/<•.# 3; tr.ra^ve't pfitr ■t.qw e'yejn*»pA ■^, 
 
 . (*fDH) yi^n«efll:JnoD 
 
 r* . ’• /lol 11 fcpi‘l.* •JM nO' .»t^ !»i/t>»1'6*‘-. liOin •! 
 
 i/-i<. I.u.> -oi -.'■ijkin.irel^iU-i oS"?! .»S 
 
 .♦.:r*»-%l-; Vnri^'DA n^.t-eoiai ic ' Rn^T J’torSt' rtnurj^qua-^ ^ 
 
 iit-J . •''oj c»‘*3<iv3 oisritoiui- ?»^j r'> Ci^-l.JCv« , 
 
 .»j’^ ■^•3 5 »ct'fe '^/t? i }t .‘0 c ’ n 1 K :-••‘^ yCvnv*: ,ip roiS*>9ii - 30 
 
 ♦ .'*6^ ♦‘Jlf - $i -aft; Y*'*' gJpJt jr?5H ipot 3,e-'3* 
 
 
 t" '.^ •■■■'fe- M 
 
 
-2- 
 
 9355 . 0-19 
 
 This is one of several interim guidances we plan to issue 
 on some of the more difficult cleanup standards issues. The 
 Selection of Remedy Workgroup, which has been meeting since 
 July and includes representatives from Regions and States in 
 addition to a wide variety of Headquarters offices, is currently 
 engaged in drafting language for the NCR regulation and preamble. 
 
 A number of issues related to applicable or relevant and appropriate 
 Federal and State requirements, cost-effectiveness, and challenges 
 associated with an increased use of treatment will be addressed. 
 
 In addition to this and subsequent interim guidances, we 
 will attempt to meet short-term Regional implementation neeas 
 by making Headquarters staff available, upon your request, to 
 assist your staffs as they modify their RI/FS workplans for 
 ongoing projects in January and February, 1987. In preparation 
 for these project review sessions. Regions in conjunction with 
 State-lead Agencies, should begin to examine ongoing projects 
 and draft a list of potential changes that will be required co 
 satisfy §121 of SARA. Regional staff should use this guidance 
 and the transition guidance as the basis for proposed workplan 
 revisions. 
 
 As soon as possible. Regions should notify potentially 
 responsible parties (PRPs) conducting RI/FSs of the new SARA 
 provisions and discuss with them any necessary moaifications 
 of their workplans. 
 
 We will continue to delegate remedy selection authority to 
 Regions. In support of this effort over the longer term we 
 will be revising the RI/FS Guidance and ROD Guidance and holding 
 related workshops in the Spring of 1987. Also, Headquarters 
 will be available to assist Regions with final FS revisions and 
 ROD preparation throughout the fiscal year. 
 
 Overview of the Process 
 
 Under SARA, the remedial process retains its major analytical 
 components: a remedial investigation (RI) in which data about 
 
 site and waste characteristics, their hazards, and routes of 
 exposure are collected and analyzed, and in which data about 
 treatability of wastes and performance of treatment processes is 
 assembled as necessary; and a feasibility study (FS) in which a 
 number of potential remedial alternatives are developed and 
 screened, and the most promising subset of alternatives is 
 evaluated against a range of factors and compared against one 
 another. This process culminates in the selection of a remedy. 
 
 Figure 1 suggests that the RI may need to be conducted in 
 at least two phases, while the FS will retain the three phases 
 described in the current NCP. The RI/FS has been evolving into 
 a more interactive process: as the FS progresses, more sophis¬ 
 ticated data are required to assess the feasibility of an 
 alternative. In addition to a literature survey, more site 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/interimguidanceoOOport 
 
0 ) 
 
 
-3 - 
 
 9355.0 -1 9 
 
 data and/or bench- or pilot-scale testing of a treatment 
 technology may be needed. Likewise, the RI has become a phased 
 process wherein the data quality objectives (DQOs) are tailored 
 to the need for additional site, waste, and treatment performance 
 information. 
 
 While the basic framework remains intact, SARA does add 
 some new features and emphasis. The most significant emphasis 
 is on risk reduction through destruction or detoxification of 
 hazardous waste by employing treatment technologies which 
 reduce toxicity, mobility or volume rather than protection 
 achieved through prevention of exposure. SARA calls for the 
 Agency to prefer remedies that use treatment to permanently 
 and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume 
 of wastes over remedies that do not use such treatment. In 
 addition, SARA requires that the Agency select a remedy that 
 utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technol¬ 
 ogies, or resource recovery technologies, to the maximum extent 
 practicable. 
 
 It should be noted that volume reduction should be considered 
 distinctly from reducing toxicity and/or mobility; some treatment 
 processes will increase the volume of contaminated material 
 while effectively reducing toxicity or mobility, whereas other 
 processes may reduce volume and consequently increase the 
 concentration of constituents which increases the toxicity 
 and/or mobility of the contaminants. 
 
 Another significant change is the codification of the 
 CERCLA Compliance Policy. First published as an appendix to 
 the preamble of the current National Contingency Plan (50 FR 
 47946, Wednesday, November 20, 1935), this policy required 
 that Superfund remedial actions attain the applicable or 
 relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of other Federal 
 environmental statutes. Furthermore, Section 300.68 of the 
 NCP specifically refers to ARARs in regard to the development 
 of alternatives. SARA incorporates this requirement into 
 statutory law while adding the provision that remedial actions 
 also attain State requirements more stringent than Federal 
 requirements if they are also applicable or relevant and 
 appropriate. 
 
 Also integral to the remedy selection process is SARA's 
 incorporation, with some modifications, of the Superfund program's 
 existing State involvement and community relations processes. 
 
 The new statute basically formalizes practices the Agency has 
 pursued and highlights the importance of early, constant, and 
 responsive relations with both the States and communities 
 affected by Superfund sites. 
 
 A discussion of how SARA affects each particular phase of 
 the remedy selection process follows. 
 
♦ J - o • c ? C Id 
 
 
 
 iv. C' 
 
 i 
 
 
 :Je»j «<Dni*ct -io'btii. 4kj4)|^ 
 
 j,“iS .)fc*t>b9ftrv .‘d v»''i£ciii 
 
 ,§•1 t » %• ■ 
 
 b-iJcilQ 4 wmn'^ ' 
 
 cir'io^ic’j P-‘ViJXcup nj^t) 
 
 asajE.in j it<<i .a-jtm** fBBQi'aibfcA b»<*n 4rfi 
 
 1 • noi .i6rjvlfii 
 
 ■ # _ _ j 'S' .■>. -1 
 
 tiOb BSOb A«f\.'*i ,3':. .;f'l /?♦#»(■**»0^04 
 
 .3 j Aci j,4;-i 1; ycJ9f 1 '^yuoi/lJ ^Teii-j no ei 
 
 f^'jAT'v «t*. ^AOnil’ %J J yd tfdtG'M SUabTlBSBp 
 
 noJ?'>*' 'OiQ Mjfc 11 i 
 
 1 1 AHA^ .ani*f:,id^i' .'•■-• an^vaiq dgu^rdd' 
 
 Li. r < 1 1 i,#ri 3 /jtO laltiiq o,^ ya.-r#p/i 
 
 Oir -^v ni^riV-M. J t Join 9fiii «0f5'«»n tnfc 
 
 f'l i 4 ji^ ? .von .‘'b :ikn:f §i»i : ^ets^'j >^v<i .'nt* ' ^o 
 
 vb^crai « 3 v «» eaiiupaa 4<!Aa .;noi 
 
 -.orifioo '4Vi;»#(tTta^J(i Uia in&n&finaq 
 
 : '.4jc» art? OJ iptidio^rt.-b? y':i»vx>jaL«4 .3iLc?al it| 
 
 . Vf I -1^ ^ iS. 
 
 r*i»3 A;':•■? fvcj bit . • i^oulMpi isonu/ldv Ch#3on -jul blflCirt?^ 7l 
 
 -W'^c Iyi'i 11 ions -ic-'iS^a V^iorno:.' pr)ia4f**a'j HfQijL-^i.iy^Aiialb 
 i6i*i 3%fl» f®4jnp:. lo ^myipv «*..u ftaft*4^on*/ 'I'Sy^td90‘»3<»*i^ 
 
 ■ «-r- .A&iiviw , {j . i 1..:./»■ TC \?0i Oub«?eitWw 
 
 'll ri;'daop*2noi-- tnt- amuiov ©3yf?«!*2 yer 
 \\it -ji' v.-j -ol: Isirtw *3r ■ •■ .i .f ?2nc«o !re. ncM.ib-sinfonpp 
 
 ^•-<tj,n 1 vrt;: ^o yJiildpw liXbAfr 
 
 rpA ^ 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 K 1 
 
 ».' ac do* li : i i j I f*» ».«! <kpn4d'4 3flr4it>> ?opla i^dJonA 
 Vi in r.fo »a r*i»fi»ildwq .yatio'v ^onAMdftbOAj'jjijn.: 
 
 !.'».• -is \oa^^ni-^p<0 f£/K)idfiK »IdrE»©'^^, *^1 * 
 
 vr.'V.. ^: iTo.| , ’6tJ. ♦ftS. Tt^dwai/oK v^deant^W 
 
 ^. ci< 0» 
 
 ^ • k 
 
 I 
 
 f.j.. 4 *^xr*Tff< J'T 
 -TJ lO »M . AA- 
 J-m‘1: .1 - »- C ■' t 
 
 f • • r . J r II '• ' J 
 
 II..* .«. I .*'' ■ n' 
 
 4 I S»' »»S lid 3 
 
 ba** ffttiv ■! v 
 
 irdj .iiia:)i& antld'-^ < bnu^i fqwP aart? 
 
 1 a.<^A>tA I ?3r.&nt^i tupAT *^9fci*jQC bAa ^nrvalPi 
 
 >'-*.d/r>i*d3‘ju^v .m0^njJ6J^ ZtioinnnoTiva# 
 
 '.♦i 
 
 ■ tJ3 
 
 • ,-f y. 1 
 
 * i 
 
 I6p»> fli filA«A td 9145»2 ^!W1 
 
 £ldl C«J4'3C':3 01>ni A^fAt A«8'' i3*At ' I li 5© 
 fl 'i'iv-'Sq fd wfel y-Ton ii,J» 
 
 iiii» uiof»i ednarnaijyp*'! oadS nit vIf- -itia 
 Vi y-ai-lqq* •■•>!* *lt t0(1j 3f a3n«.**2iyp#-2 
 
 . ed4AT';&aqq6 
 
 « ' ^Ai* ■- =. ' 
 
 I -, &■ 
 
 . -. /i.'l<i ant- 
 
 H-.. i5<t»t A ♦li ’ 
 
 f-f/i, 
 
 '6 
 
 , .- n fe 3 lO v6 
 
 -» . 4 ) ' ;l >11?* 
 
 yb*ia»2 ®rt3' 03 i5lt^3nl 04$||^ 
 i*.‘ I kr c,43«‘Oi: j i bom imra daiy vfioj aa^^iqUoan 1 
 ■j y*ii jmmoa bnfc 
 i-vs-ijoaiq av»; |f,?Tr5o! 
 
 5c eDji4?^oqflL:* 
 
 “ bnti jf.aa, 3 H p .(13 r 'r.ir d?iv •noldaX^-j 
 
 .«vJ/e' btn.^degu? yd 
 
 
 i#V*v J IMw w • I J Jl W yfl w# V • *l ' •'^ 4 w^f} • ■?■ 
 
 i in9ir**iVlovoi »34J^ ■ 
 
 ,>5 yiiaoiAtd >dv?3a3* #*rt •♦IT* I 
 :• tdcf"'*. te^ii'^uq ”4 
 
 'i 
 
 3c« wjr.dq If iypiiaaq do49 B3D0i!kii nuif VU'T't j f- A '■ 
 
 •wclio) f»«QO*5q noXaor^.”4#o .i-yte^t • *3 
 
 i 
 
 :t|P“ 
 
 # 
 
 . -lik"V" 
 
-4 - 
 
 9355 . 0-19 
 
 Scoping of the RI/FS 
 
 In this phase, a workplan for the RI and the FS is prepared 
 to undertake the studies. Existing data about the site from 
 previous investigations, including Preliminary Assessment and 
 Site Investigation data collected for the National Priorities 
 Listing, are assembled and evaluated. Initial project boundaries 
 are identified, and a preliminary decision made on whether the 
 entire site will be evaluated and remedied as a single unit or 
 subdivided into two or more operable units. 
 
 Most significant in this phase is the preliminary identi¬ 
 fication of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements 
 that alternatives will need to attain. At this early stage in 
 the process. Regions and States should begin identifying potential 
 health-based requirements related to determining initial action 
 levels, requirements which restrict activities that can be 
 undertaken at different locations, (such as floodplains, wetlands, 
 and historic sites), and on whether the requirements might be 
 met at the completion of each operable unit or the total site 
 remedy. Also, States should begin to identify and notify Regions 
 of State requirements that may be potentially applicable or 
 relevant and appropriate to the site. 
 
 Initial data quality objectives (DQOs) should also be 
 established to ensure that environmental, health effects ana 
 treatability data will be of adequate quality and appropriate 
 for their intended uses. 
 
 Site Characterization (RI Phase I) 
 
 This phase focuses on defining the nature and extent 
 of contamination through field sampling and laboratory analysis 
 to determine initial cleanup goals and to characterize waste 
 types, mixtures, volume, the media in which they occur, concen¬ 
 tration ranges and profiles, and interface zones between meaia. 
 An analysis is conducted to characterize and assess risks, 
 routes of exposure, fate and transport of contaminants, and 
 likely human and environmental receptors. DQOs should be 
 evaluated to identify data use, type, quality, and quantity. 
 DQOs should be refined to ensure that forseeable needs for 
 environmental, health effects, and treatability data will be 
 met. At the completion of this stage. Regions should supply 
 the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry with the 
 data and analytical results. 
 
*1 tme -M loi ntic^ATO^^/ £ ai/i: nl •/ -v " 5 : 
 
 miM ^341 MJ 'i-n;jai a? ^t^)bu3s ori:) ejiftSi^bnu o:» ‘r 
 
 -•Dfc. 8M»(*h#ycM»A Y •serrjmlMw'?'r.niJ^biofii . an^i 3»j?)i leuvni E;joivt»iq ' 
 
 ■ .-.j i icu''^^ iano;v-i^ e»ri 3 ’1C?^I j**! J oa. noia6|>/:. eevni «518 
 
 ..DAu.f‘d 3-':ft<y3fq .bajaw^r-v^ ba& ,prtii«U 
 
 It*.;? rr- note;:*o'. • bne *34 
 
 '1 ‘ 3int fc :;fc bd^jsuXftV© 
 
 * y' 1 tfW' •*ldf.*j'/i, ., 'a. ow$ o^ni b*bivjtbdu*-, 
 
 'ly 
 
 viartiniXi-JO ei' e>$Atiq »i;-b Si jdBO*Uno)^ jsoH * 4 ' 
 
 ? iii'i/ffs fi•»3bi'?-. 4;^qfc ftnc Vc»i»2[ *) o t»Ivifl ' r iqgft Jc -BF ' 
 
 i vJ-4a4* I . j ‘‘i ,7iJt.^“U 3 EaviJ4«*>^ ii 4 . 
 
 iLxj, . JO^: ^>n .'{* i Tnji©j oj-M-ad biuo/t4' a 9 ,ia.:#f‘ bde. anoir?!^ ^ v 5 t*DO- 3 g *.' 1 ^ 
 
 J M.'I u «,‘j b«:f4i4ii car»<><fT9’3iupei b^BioEf-.i 71 *<m4 
 
 e-' rtto> '' w .1 > I ja£-^31 ^ i^X»X.*<v sirtifmin I ^ n 6 1 tv® jf 
 
 »*r.X^': -i .i&t ,»nfJi 1 ».xji 5fl»a95iJib onjifc.^'asfcmi. 
 
 * 4 ; ’rtr-.m a ^ •jpi.*'? of3 idrfdiidw no , < * S'3 i e'^i’To 3 ^ yl bna 
 
 dJlv . ^jcJ f^3^' .? i n.^ rtoe# 5c* nciJalgmoQ'.*f <4 \ 449 ^ 
 
 j.?o.) 1x16 d 3 nAp»d bXvorta e-ra^iJS _ 
 
 ?•; "tOliqq* vJ ‘ fti;>«‘e»30Q «»;• YfcfP nerl ^.ifvbnwsiup&T 5o I 
 
 idi(i 5 oi uj^iKjcsqqfl bne I 
 
 itc u.‘11^ » 'ofis ftCH,a] yiJilst'p .• .'ftb X^idi-nJ 
 
 t'dft .*''^ei3£ A ' • i-n , ’fi^nsfnndiivn*^ de/ia ai b«fia,rrci«3a*# 
 
 •••."A 1 ! ‘7.:'',£ poa VT..6MP ©3ftuX’9bft 5:' dO IXiw trlitb" y? 1 -X d£ 36 *d^ 
 
 --eawu b9bfj©3ftl 3l»riJ 10 ? 
 
 :-j «a 
 
 * . fl 
 
 ’^^’'**^1 Ifl) rr QX3^!? i‘393aeTyi? »3iE 
 
 , DrajKi '- • 3nf( 9113 pnifii3»t' da esi^u-jo^ ©fddq »irfT 
 
 c, \ ■ h*'L .i.js** L ' brs i5n 1 LC'JMta Si e»i‘3 ftc.Xdsainuia^ficra 
 
 ;. Hi . ae J VI i:»r.* o .t* « f-Bat* qu*''4iwIo Xni^ici «niw|»a®tf oj 
 
 .64—' n Bonoi aardSiajni In* »^,iiXiioiq bne aepnet3fii 1 \. 
 
 cE.'BeB *..'ja 3S 1 o3 b*;fdoubnoa ai EieY*i^n^ ' 
 
 , ‘Hk , i>jnsnim*,3riv 3 iw j .ivgan&id tna «»*iaeoqx9 lo ? 
 
 -d bn/cc,? bC 0 . fj-C'^qiaioc ) ie-?n©r.noi Jtvn© bne neroPil Yl9>lif*,^r 
 
 .Jij-if^up jM* .\. 3 ilbup • *»»u •'{liJnirijii- oj bbd&uXevib*. 
 
 act 3t/i3 o3 beniie’3 ®d bXdDrta eOOQ T^' 
 
 -• ■ ij iw ejeb Y^XijqAJ:&9'3 boa ,e339'i3i» .i-le&d »iein»ftn©*»ivn9 ' 
 
 Vic. jUc 4?noip3fi . vpn^e* ei»^3 3o nci j»*lqjaioD erft . 
 
 o.-.t rti*w \ . tii t d? eae^^JO bfl* aeore^mduS alxoX 3^3 v3<i»q»* ^lis , 
 
 • s3144903 XAt^ixvXtn?' I'B-ieb 
 
 1 
 
-5 - 
 
 9355 . 0-19 
 
 Development of Alternatives (FS Phase I) 
 
 This stage may begin concurrently with or slightly behind 
 the RI and consists of three major steps: identifying potential 
 treatment technologies and their associated containment or 
 disposal requirements; prescreening of technologies for suitability 
 as part of alternatives, and assembling technology and/or 
 disposal combinations into alternatives. 
 
 Treatment alternatives should be developed ranging from 
 an alternative that, to the degree possible, would eliminate 
 the need for long-term management (including monitoring) at 
 the site to alternatives involving treatment that would 
 reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume as their principal element. 
 Although alternatives may involve different technologies (which 
 will most often address toxicity and mobility) for different 
 types of waste, they will vary mainly in the degree to which 
 they rely on long-term management of treatment residuals or 
 low-concentrated wastes. 
 
 In addition to the range of treatment alternatives, a 
 containment option involving little or no treatment and a 
 no action alternative should also be developed. 
 
 Initial Screening (FS Phase II) 
 
 The purpose of the screening step is to reduce the number 
 of alternatives for further analysis while preserving a range 
 of options. Consultation between the Agency and the State is 
 very important at this stage. This screening is accomplished 
 by considering the alternatives against effectiveness, implement- 
 ability and cost factors. Cost is an important factor when 
 comparing alternatives which provide similar results (i.e., 
 cost may be used to discriminate among treatment alternatives, 
 but not between treatment and nontreatment alternatives). 
 
 In some situations the above factors could occasionally 
 result in elimination of alternatives which involve treatment 
 of the source as the principal element (e.g., large, complex 
 sites such as municipal landfills). Typically, ground water 
 actions will be necessary at such sites to achieve adequate 
 protection. The ROD must explain the rationale for eliminating 
 source treatment options at this point in the process. 
 
 Innovative technologies should be carried through the 
 screen if there is reasonable belief that they offer potential 
 for better treatment performance or implementab il i ty, few or 
 lesser adverse impacts than other available approaches, or 
 lower costs than demonstrated technologies. 
 

 
 
 t,n<r* •- lo - ;w v fciiiwti . jed v«^ * eid#a; ' 
 
 •.s j. jc : i s* 9 # 3 fflfcio^&v^ voadj 5 <* «r^I<fK>® bn jH 
 
 tnaip^'swijjtr jttfH bns &»r,7Alpr>«i^3 ':)nt5fuJ»9Tid 
 3iJid>. MJ# .f">i *-^j;-:■ j c<ftrt: o )C' nw^ipao-jq ^ejnomoiiapsT Ifi-joq^Xb 
 ^o.\<»«^; v"-- i <>r . r nf. iio 
 
 .e'!»vj jArni'Jin 63ni enci:>6rtidrt><s; iiuaoqetb 
 
 w “?i r '1. i|rt: I'.^c .'■‘/iih^’if Dli>c>f<« ,3n9ot3i^ft*jT 
 
 vf^/ ■'• Iw b uov- . .idietroq a^api^D 'dd4 tsjf »vj3fc>ft-3^jit >4 
 
 ^ 40 / pf* bao .1 . no. ^*n I t,4Ff ofi j ) Iff7'. ■^' p'»0/ TTOi bci^ri #43 
 
 T»,^a «.473 pni’-^Iovrl 5»&v/ieaIs oi 
 
 i«r»/»!• i'•■n *r n.j. ^r'^ ... amul'd'^ ^*10 »"yii Xixt^i^ixckj-'-aoKbai 
 
 -• *<•.C‘'-io vd:--?*- jna' lib r '- ovrt j ytm e iV;dfr.rtji©3Xfi dpi/odilA 
 
 .’IJX’SO/n b/if. y-Xalxo3 J#or iXiw 
 
 rij-» mil ^ Pi v-Xiiiciin \itv Hiy Y3#l.i i’-jeisw 5 q ,3»»^yj 
 
 7 Jo ffTSa^--c^ojt_^o yle j'v»-/‘^3 
 
 F, ,fc-^ * lU^’.fi .T.na/Tti«*73 lo 4Ctd£7 9rtJ o;J noi.titibh nl 
 
 i *■'^ Oil 70 «•''?-• rJ rnivlovnl nolJqo iPv>nni d;! noo 
 r'*FQi.‘l«vab t»o -Xilt biwoHa aytl&PXBilt on 
 
 > /I ’V/:pi 
 
 (II aEftd*? e’^^- ^nino^toS Xeiainl 
 
 3 ‘ ft; 
 
 ], ..T-• = 'J £i q^3L pol<!a-^708 orl3 9o a»oq70q,*.lT 
 
 ' » p>i; V.*s.E'^Ian^ 3S>ii3iu3 aa^ «avi 
 
 •'*'.? in/!. ydf<»pA J>ri3 r>»o%#39c f*oJ3«3'IjL/«iio^ * aroj^-^^*. ■ In" 
 
 U-.lii. .^c’ .>/ cl ii.v,>t7o« si4T siH3 3 8 ^ns/toqjt^^ »7ev 
 
 -5 ■I'tfii'jbar.ci vv. .'-t*1i - aeni-pB t*vl3anxt3X6 pniSablM-^o yd 
 
 ran* *.c cij jna3 7 .-*qp I n» ci sioD *«ao?>65 j«oo bne y^UidP 
 «: 'uftaj 78: * nrE m.^vo^Q d.. Xffwr f pvi,pn|X40n»00 
 , gw 'j jr.j'■ ■< j: & jr *r: 3 * 07 d pno-fiv 9 Jcp D O bsa* «d Jaoo 
 
 ‘- .. jvl; nn‘ :»J ,■:••• ■•r.rfissai,-cn 3r.'’»aia8Bi3 na^wdad'3L.*<t 
 
 > ; ,. 
 
 * y fi (k ttO'w8aoo t'ii ■■> «;?o3*u ' avoca ao£^id‘8Ud iB tn/o© nl*,'’-j 
 
 3,-i-s .: ' ?:Vfovfli lioidv gavjdj mfeiie !to no: jsnlaili4>'rti dlysei 
 ,ttp78i ,.i 5) inv'n^lo iPQJOfiXraxs arfd ©bduoB <*((d 3o 
 
 i>ru 7C vViiiiS qyT ./sXlidiinel X8QloifVJ3ja^fe doue ydit 
 ■ •0^ ..vairi s. c .i svd.a douB '3 6 ydfetaeoan ad iM'v enoido* 
 
 ;,£ii jsnlfti ! ' i t-ioj rif^qy^F det/m Otta tdT .noi’^'T'SidOdq 
 
 ' 7 P add ni dnioq sxdd dp amoidqr jnBr'i-vTd ■PTayo#- 
 
 baXd .i:-. »»o aaieclcnfbd^ n.^i5-4,yv)nnl -2^ 
 
 ;*•* ■’; 7v?3c Jmfld ^bilpc. oicfcnuefcai eJ ne^do* 
 
 *K wn* *, vd.i U<j«3n7{ft:* i',mx 70 anp6/r-jol-jf*q d-»Am36>id 
 
 .a^ »D80;qqfi dpndo n8d3 adopqr'^ BEi-^-vfcft 7<»»8 
 
 .2t»lpoiondi^^i |j9d673er(omsb ne^td^ aJrOo d.wol* 
 
 ■'i 
 
-6 - 
 
 9355.0 -1 9 
 
 Post Screening Field Investigation (RI Phase II) 
 
 This phase of the RI should focus on collecting data 
 sufficient to make a well-substantiated remedy selection 
 decision. After a literature survey is conducted to identify 
 existing treatment data, treatability tests at the bench- and 
 sometimes pilot-scale may be necessary to test a particular 
 technology on actual site waste. Additional field data may 
 be collected as needed to further assess alternatives. 
 
 Detailed Analysis (FS Phase III) 
 
 The alternatives passing through the initial screen 
 should be analyzed in further detail against a range of factors 
 and compared against one another. 
 
 The effectiveness of the alternatives should be assessed, 
 taking into account whether or not an alternative adequately 
 protects human health and the environment and attains Federal 
 and State ARARs, whether or not it significantly and permanently 
 reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous constituents, 
 and whether or not it is technically reliable. 
 
 Alternatives should be evaluated against implementabi1ity 
 factors, including the technical feasibility and availability 
 of the technologies each alternative would employ, the technical 
 and institutional ability to monitor, maintain, and replace 
 technologies over time; and the administrative feasibility of 
 implementing the alternative. 
 
 Finally, the costs of construction and the long-term costs 
 of operating and maintaining the alternatives should be analyzed 
 using present-worth analysis. 
 
 Both the short- and long-term effects of each of these 
 factors must be assessed. In considering these items. Regions 
 will address all of the long-term effectiveness factors cited 
 in SARA §121(b)(l). After each alternative has been analyzed 
 against these factors, the remedial options should be compared 
 for their relative strengths and weaknesses. 
 
 Upon completion of the RI and draft FS, EPA and the State 
 should formulate a recommended alternative or approach to 
 present to the community when the FS goes out for public comment. 
 
 At this point, the RI/FS is transmitted to ATSDR for their use 
 in preparing a health assessment. 
 
TV 
 
 { 1 Srt? IS) gojt 3 iS'pi O t-5X ^ Offl nB9‘20S S gp^ 
 
 1:1X0 
 
 Qn/'- iTlXoo I'i? auisoS. faJijod€L It? -in ? airii 
 
 r^«.' V Yt>’i»*/r6i |>di«iJr^G5artwa-flew ji o?i6« OJ 5nai5)i3fya 
 j fc>l04*bnoj f>i y#viL.e a 
 
 7 Jo fij0»^ ';:iiI \^iShb ini^mi0‘9%S pni:^eix5 
 
 _ ^ MB M .»i 
 
 4>#l 
 
 nc 
 
 H 
 
 t n A 'dorurtt' v: -' JO QJOW^ a « >Ja ^ i»w «»4. V I*w;«--•■■ « B-r, — 
 
 "ifc'u» ii^q • Bi#e4 oJ* -^d ^%Di »lhjZ^:SQ£k^ t^TiS9tl^^ 
 
 V Am 63t^' 6/»i J itnoijfba* .^iasw IfeLJrvA no'r on.iD^*, 
 
 T 6SiVjj«ftioJii. «aassa "3?d4-3ui o3 »a h»434^i<C'0 ad 
 
 ^ U'U »aad^, 8^ i feAgy: anA iaJ^O 
 
 1 • ni a/ii flgooT'"^ ^^xilaaAC. ei«v, j^inna-^Xn ar^T 
 iiiJ^c •- janiAf* ^art-^dul nx t?^sYX«f‘fc »cX 
 
 »na Jraiapa ba-aAqMoo oXia 
 
 *■ V 
 
 “ ^ :: b. >«vi J6ni^j:£ arii Ho »a'#n0viJo*)^fi. «ftt 
 
 " rK-jci.p'..:;*v avi jl-.M'd.TiA n« JC-' :io isriiaiiw ojfii f 
 
 grtiicJJA Xnifi iitamno'iiwxia 4dj £^ne H?l,ftt»ff , 
 
 \i4<i^»a6nns>^ b'* 'v‘5^t>i5inric 4i Jon to i*v '3>dv .aSAJ^A boa 
 
 jndfjii>AeJo 6*.r '»»?.»!’: ?C( ov -so .y^iUtc^- ,yjjr4xC'4 t>d4 aftt'ofcai 
 
 .'»4a»iii>3 yjr«oiortoed ?J n 
 
 YJ . iXdfeSTt JfjrrU jC'lfcQ'A b&3fcul&v» ad biooda aovlJjim® jXA 
 
 ', -x, •'i6i.?'VA bns yjiii&.1J -^Rl'boltxnl 
 1 ^-, 9rtJ ♦YOi'5>r'";? bluow svixfoto^ai^oXonrip#d' 1o 
 
 ^ r.'va ooHXncm o3 ydiUcilA iftnoi3u3l3anX bn« 
 
 Jvv 1ig*''1 ^v>4a;x.i*inifnb6 adi fcnR »i>/ni3 “aavo sol^oXonx^'.CfJ 
 
 - , .#viJ6fTj»iXfc crtd pnxin'Af m) ,, 
 
 # ^ • * _|i 
 
 . J 30 j 5 . j-ynoJ i-n.^ na nt,i:iz^v^^ ^ moo Ha eda^w arid ,yIl6fTi1 SMI 
 
 x.aivXfint =‘Ci A.;.'t‘Xlc .'v. i it-r “ae J U ariJ fc.iinifejnlfim boa pni4A44*qa 5o 
 
 .eXeyXAnA rijnov-Jnaea’Jq i»a 
 
 >. ^ 
 
 3 '' rtp^tj o i-j'jaiHi i»)*ift'J*onoX on A -dlodB ddJ rtJod^ ' 
 
 ’ 4c '’s*Jt ^-:t4nl .baesseeA ad jetJ’f’ aiodPai . 
 
 t:b ^ - f'st'JiA' ?! ffcfj*" V < fln^Jt'noI a-* t fo Ii« .^ae^bbA ill'* 
 
 t..*sy .si i’ .'S'! <■ Vi jId noAfr “saJHA •=s»{.X ) (d) XS ASA3 ni 
 
 1 isq -vps '-•.’ b:. j' ' j-roijqd Ifc* b^tncj add g»aaft3 dfloiAqa J 
 
 bne fcd’’^n*-33« llairf^'loH • 
 
 y*t3 *.‘^6 '■•' 
 
 c 1 tiutbOi* *3A 
 , jn^*;*OP to: 
 
 • -lU' 
 
 I 
 
 ^w1 tHerl bM* Ifi «»/lJ Ho /?.;X Ja Cq/noo/no<t^ > 
 
 . jfen-jeaJ^ ^ob^^«mina^>a•3 & aifcUiffnoH M na 
 
 wC 8eo5 »fl4 n*H«# 4n3 ■ iq 
 
 A 03 baj J :rn?nfl*}d ax 0^\Ii3 Vrt? ,J/i'JOq eJd- dA 
 • tnam^ffiaa* rfjieeil A ''i 
 
 f ^./ 
 
 “4 
 
 *■# 
 
 [Kill) 
 
 •»k#l 
 
 
 4 
 
-7 - 
 
 y 3 5 5 . U -i 9 
 
 Selection of Remedy 
 
 The remedial action for a site should be selected among 
 those alternatives about which the following four findings 
 can be made: 
 
 ° Remedies must be protective of human health and the 
 
 environment. This means that the remedy meets or exceeds 
 ARARs or health-based levels established through a risk 
 assessment when ARARs do not exist. 
 
 ° Remedies should attain Federal and State public health 
 and environmental requirements that have been identified 
 for a specific site. In general, the remedy selection 
 process presumes that alternatives will be formulated 
 and refined to ensure that they attain all of the 
 appropriate ARARs. However, SARA does provide waivers 
 which permit selection of remedies which do not attain 
 all ARARs under six different types of circumstances: 
 fund-balancing, technical impracticability, interim 
 remedy, greater risk to health and the environment, 
 equivalent standard of performance, and inconsistent 
 application of State standards. If a remedy is protective, 
 cost-effective, and adequately satisfies the statutory 
 preferences, inability to attain a particular ARAR will 
 not necessarily prevent selection of that alternative if 
 it was viewed as the all around best remedial alternative. 
 
 ° Remedies must be cost-effective . In general, this 
 
 finding requires ensuring that the results of a particular 
 alternative cannot be achieved by less costly methods. 
 
 This implies that for any specific site there may be 
 more than one cost-effective remedy, with each remedy 
 varying in its environmental and public health results. 
 
 ° Remedies must utilize permanent solutions and a lternative 
 treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies 
 to the maximum extent practicable . This determination 
 is interrelated to the cost-effectiveness finding and 
 includes consideration of technological feasibility and 
 availability. 
 
 The selected remedy should represent the best balance across 
 all the effectiveness, implementabi1ity, and cost factors examinea 
 in the detailed analysis. In making this selection, the decision¬ 
 maker must consider the statutory preference for treatment which 
 permanently and significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility or 
 volume of the waste. 
 
 The program permits the staging of remedial action imple¬ 
 mentation through multiple operable units. Decisionmakers may 
 choose to implement a limited measure to stabilize a site when 
 a suitable technology for that site is not currently available 
 but clearly on the horizon or capacity tor the desired technology 
 is currently unavailable. Initial cleanup actions should not 
 impede implementation of subsequent phases. 
 

 
 
 
 . t- 
 
 iiiOiis o, 
 
 eQnibt\ii nool t'nfvttjMoJ 5iijf 
 
 yt>»iti»q !t0 
 
 i :icil ->J*;;; 
 
 rtoirtw Juodft -saorfi 
 
 ‘i:^ £^c ruj5P' (it muff' *!o. ^Jev dCV<s Pd Jeuix ?ei6lim»9 ^ 
 
 jx» Ttrv 8;^i»e(rk yb»/Qi3 ^ *>fld jk^TT^^js Srj c i(JT . ^nvmnpiji Vfr® ’* 
 ite:‘7 i» hg^g*?*!^ t>on£iiO£,te^ aldys' b6R&<i“ridIs9ff 50 i*ilA<lA 
 
 ..i^i9«v zjlAyiA ina^tc-^tee 
 
 < I 
 
 ‘At ■ f ,• 4 -• i .k 
 
 ’J^ ^ari oj l(iuq bng leiabd aife:>3fe ..XuorfA *©iba<naS •',-. 
 
 Da nc9C f'V =i^ iiadd aJoaoitjoIupa-a ^xa'Jngffinoyivfra grta 
 
 r. ij-ytXbe v‘t'E?^^3 ♦(Id »riT ~ , s>J ie Di 5 i'* 
 
 '•-‘^^fciuiTMoi ^ ii-tk* Jsrtd .^e^:K>5q 
 
 ®*13 30 Ue i.e. dB ybrtd dftfl? ©luena cd. bi(hJla's fev 
 j'jdv.fiw wDjVoio **»oJ' AHAB %3»vdwo« *e^ARA e»dj^ldqc?iitn& 
 
 . < 11 © dcui ot tiyj-IV n^ib&fdai Jo npldoai^v 1 1 (fiddq rf 31 
 ' 10 diie'iaIJiD jtxa 'j'sbftu lift . 
 
 jujATvJAi , yji /iOi.'. i'd3*iQ(p| lAoinrtpej ^cnid'-itlfcO-dnuJ -= 
 
 . :?f»/»iA0'3 < vn:> itn© i-fjifcid oJ )<2;- 4fc: 
 
 ia/ioanJ tjnt. , 6*^11 s'»ndJ*j!*q 30 bisOfiAle Jn‘i>f^i4jp9 
 , *V 4 _ j.Ov’q s yDfUKti '- 3 .' .aoiebrjBJa 6d63£ 3* noA JfcdlXqq© 
 
 yroioo 'o ‘i. 
 
 -^v -tj no/d9©t»c dn*va'9q yJ i ite«©Df*rt JQo 
 j3*tiCJ D'lJOIft (f6 S»13 £A D«V*>i.V,.. «#v jl 
 
 rxiw 
 
 i'3X.i-'3©« yledoupaba bna ,>v, j >o^‘l©r-4«tSo, 
 oaeq i n(£#dJA cj v3Xi Idani- 
 
 e<vi >«'• 3 ’ 
 Jic 
 
 i ci Dom*^T 
 
 ?«cl J ■feioa-s'V 
 
 I' 
 
 
 i«l be/|Sk 
 
 . .. :’ri ©ill J6f1i pA-JUan© eftTXupai pH i 0(1.4 J 
 
 ycj bavsiffgr od J|c»aAB.D ©viifindkidXA 
 jf’a *: ?o,'!*t‘ ‘fi jl' Dll I •jeqsL yn© tcJ oedd eSrfIT 
 
 Vw©;-*-: »’;b*/«a3 avlJOet^a-d'aqo eno ‘*Tbm 
 
 - ‘ ii,:-.a3 ‘tJifcvn ■■"iri;/r; b;,© ;©d/(<»mn6ii 'o© e*di ni pniy;iB> 
 
 y '/) ■) OA- tho/j.'lca 
 
 af 
 
 ^>c lonn jgJ - y i^voooi 
 -x . >©fi. ^' ai'iT 
 
 t 
 
 dns -'inaq asXXxdo 3 3,»/sa * a * ^ 
 
 ©oiuoa»3 10 »»i ooIbnrtoa3 3 flt.>m3«t#'33 
 
 ’ j ^i?30 JA*JX& IBOfflljiy&lt; 
 
 atflir'I jdvJTo- X£,o 3 aild of baJj|i©T3©4(T' 
 
 /Atk y. J 
 
 i, yd* * 3 iW rf.-> J t -fi poXonAot* 
 
 Jo AoiJ©.Mblinos a 
 
 diOTdc 
 
 UO'iiP&Xo 
 
 'd 
 
 ' j ‘1 
 
 ■'^ayKORd* hluorta yb>m©T l>=*JsaI 
 . yiiA i cJ64n»m&Xqrt>J iae©nav-AdOo53«^ ©rtJ 
 tod nfoJ *oi:. mss t-Md igifliVbm nl •al*YXBrtt baXiflJBb «eAjJ mA 
 (‘-.•jV -j j i :j‘. laa’Jwiij yaoatJ'dBdi v '-'* TabXtnoq daydi 
 
 i03 a*J 
 
 JJ ■ I 
 
 ? .• c 
 
 rt J 
 ^4)C 
 
 iXi 
 
 V3 1 ' JQtn 4^diOi roi 
 
 ^rtd 8fc<oyb©3 yXjnsol i inpxe b'WB y'Xdnon6flni©q,. 
 
 «©Jeew ©Kxg Jo tMisuJov 
 
 :<■' yj-./L Ibrbs'T'd!? Jo pnipr.da arid aJlnnyq »;mpkfsftl 
 \toxr a-JoMbW 33-’»0 .^Jinu ©Xdeosqo vXqidlw/Ti 
 
 o©dw to '♦s ixidrfS*' cd «tuai9/n tsdiinJ I t Jtii'dn** Aqi^i , ^3 ©eopdo 
 
 I*. dAlxcVte yi 'ne*^^ U5 doA jsi ©jia dariJ s-vJ ypoXonrtoar 
 
 *J t 3 -j:aeb lOi ,\‘3'ioBqio lO rtoiJaori i(id po v/ jaelo “ort 
 -luaif- 3nc.:dS< QUiiioio (siSin^ . ©idaXifcver.X’ ci 
 
 .8©E«AqooupaeduB "Jc ncfXdfcdniktn^iqnti oaqmj 
 
 
-8 - 
 
 935b.U-ly 
 
 Writing the ROD 
 
 The Record of Decision (declaration statement and supporting 
 documentation) is the centerpiece of the administrative record 
 against which the Agency's decisionmaking may be judged by the 
 courts. In addition to containing an accurate and complete 
 summary of the site, the threat it poses, and the selected remedy, 
 the ROD must describe the relative strengths and weaknesses of 
 each alternative considered and offer a clear justification for 
 the final decision that is made. For Fund-financed actions, the 
 ROD should include a formal written concurrence from the State. 
 
 Specific statements and explanations that should appear in 
 the ROD include the following: 
 
 ° A statement and justification that the selected remedy is 
 protective and cost-effective, attains ARARs and utilizes 
 permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum 
 extent practicable, where all statutory requirements and 
 preferences are fully satisfied. 
 
 ® An explanation as to why an alternative that would have reduced 
 the toxicity, mobility, or volume of waste was not selected 
 if the selected remedy does not satisfy the preference for 
 permanent solutions. 
 
 ° A statement that indicates whether a remedy which does not 
 satisfy the statutory preferences for treatment is intended 
 as the final remedy for that site (at a minimum this remedy 
 would have to be protective and cost-effective) or whether 
 the action is an operable unit that will be followed by 
 subsequent actions to achieve a final remedy which satisfies 
 the preferences. The timeframe for completing the total 
 remedy should be specified. 
 
 ° A description of those Federal and State requirements which 
 were found to be applicable or relevant and appropriate to the 
 site and will be met. In addition, where ARARs do not exist, 
 a description of the health-based level that will be met. 
 
 ° A statement of which ARARs will not be met and the waiver 
 that will be invoked to justify the nonattainment. 
 
 ° In those occasional situations where no treatment alternative 
 was carried through the screen to the detailed analysis (for 
 sites such as municipal landfills) a special explanation 
 should be included in the ROD. 
 
 Decisionmakers have some flexibility as to how specific the 
 ROD is regarding the use of treatment technologies. At a 
 minimum, the ROD should state what technology will be applied 
 to what type and amount of waste and the performance goal that 
 process is expected to reach. For instance, the ROD may state 
 that theirmal destruction is the selected remedy. However, the 
 
L' 1- . 
 
 ■j :■ 
 
 fTx 
 
 b-?ou 
 
 1 
 
 pii . 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 •00.". 1 ' ' ;"fW 
 
 t : .' 
 
 “ 1 
 
 . .; 
 
 
 ; r i*f.: 
 
 •ir 3c ' 
 
 1 j f 3 *: ! 
 
 peri"V ■■■-'!' ■>• •. 
 
 '■4 
 
 V V A • 
 
 ' ' r : 
 
 ^ i r.r'i 
 
 .. ♦ 4 ^ 
 
 
 « ' 
 
 
 ' o». 
 
 \ 6 -n :-■■ 
 
 '; ,i'£f ' 
 
 ?i. ' xon^'p 
 
 
 ;.iio-.. 
 
 . ■ ' e 
 
 :*3 l: ' 
 
 . : '0 ’-pn 
 
 . n . ' .K - no 
 
 OJ 
 
 Tj ■: i £.' £ 
 
 Oil J 
 
 br . 
 
 ;• •C'.'.; 3i 
 
 3 * Oii3 i 
 
 : 
 
 • n.'Jfi -'■ 
 
 * tr 
 
 6 ri . ; 
 
 ijr PV 
 
 lieiei •Hb odx- 
 
 ■ J :J 
 
 r. : ^ t 
 
 jsut 
 
 3 a f. I r 
 
 t. T ■ I. j >. ■ 
 
 f |06 b»39 i:- 
 
 •> ; 
 
 4“. 
 
 ■.< 0 0 L- 0 i •, - : 
 
 .-i zol 
 
 . Mbt If?'' 
 
 < / 
 
 , J 'ip** J 9 
 
 '.-r-,’ 1 : 
 
 ci'iC'b 'u J3i3w I aim■' ■■ 1 
 
 
 i. t i 
 
 
 ‘ 
 
 - • ■■ >60 6Jqx'’* a:..* '•’■'lOir:" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■• / ^ *1 ' * 03 -.>• 
 
 [ 
 
 . T.:!' . 
 
 • ^ * 
 
 D' , 
 
 7^- 3 -le.f'b 
 
 : nr i ^ •-• . _ f -J 2 J ^•■ 
 
 
 ', 1 J > 
 
 iJl’t 
 
 J ? , 
 
 3 3 r 
 
 - 
 
 ; t 
 
 ^ ,' 3 *• 
 
 
 I ■•:, 
 
 
 Drf- rnr 
 
 , ;; 
 
 e J r: i’ 
 
 
 4 - i* 
 
 
 it 9 J ailw , 0 ; 
 
 
 
 
 . . i , « 
 
 » 
 
 •■a -I'i 39'-i 
 
 
 • £ '• *■ ■ 
 
 
 . i - 
 
 ■ -^ •- 
 
 i ■-, 06 Y''''- ■ ‘ 
 
 t 
 
 - • M "* 
 
 
 .' * 
 
 T;'. 
 
 '.o-^ 30 .y-r;. -' 
 
 
 :■•'-'tio 
 
 03: 
 
 ■ '- < 
 
 3 Z J C 
 
 1 C r B»Ob -'!~i 
 
 OllT ' 
 
 ; j., .Tfc ^nsf . :>&b- 
 
 ■ ' •'V -ih! i ftps 
 
 . J ' son 
 
 o.id 1(^ vit,-rtufe 
 
 Ob iBuigi i ' vrti 
 
 •V • :? srra^ :' . r 
 
 •• » 
 
 ;■ M ::jn 0f1$ 
 
 ' ■ ’fib "5 . ■ Sc ' 
 
 j : :e joiq .. 
 
 
 . ‘ .C IXOH 
 
 L ■ ■• J b'iiX 1^3 
 
 ;(- ; n» oo 
 
 - i/tvJ ^ iivfl3d!lw p* ■I i -t- 'j yrsir."’,'f: T ; cli; ■' 
 
 ^ :;■ J If-' »ooh9T33 a'Jq v 4 'g J &r' “ 3ci . 
 
 ,n:; .-? : T j.Ti'fi pr. '. -.-Ji; *■■. - ‘ '■ 
 
 ■'^-..iv’-c' ‘.V- —:-c-CO boa ©V : "uo?;'1.. -yti OJ Luo^ 
 
 jw-' ♦ - -iiw .i6(i:.' vl nb ' 
 
 {■' 
 
 /l.li'W vr’’---"^ .’I J snJ n t> 'I 
 
 ...jo-i «•:'■? r i J o !• jmc-: tvI bmfi': ■; o." ’ : ■ 
 
 ''J I'W I" -' . L'bO’i :* ■■' t ■ 
 '■'1 t . ^ -''fii' 
 
 ’- cC/ 
 
 ’ f- * lj ' W'" ■ '1 _.■ 
 
 ■ r. ero'lj *- 
 
 - ? ’ ' ■ J o 
 
 ' . . ..'w ,. ■ . loir 
 
 b-' * .' r ttO orl 'J ■_ 
 
 £ rl rolib^. 
 
 V* .in9Up#ftCJb« 
 
 ^•sn'vnd3ei^^’ Mig 
 
 .' r ,: M b A * 
 
 ;.MiUC)l 9*3 9W 
 
 f .‘. .03i8 
 . . - ^9b t 
 
 • , i'. 'lit ' O adiJ t«0'- -' 
 
 ^ -'V'^af'v r-'t fT£. ' 63 
 
 ‘ - " 0 'JAnt Iq/.o '1^ '• •<■] 
 
 jor < ' ■i'.^JdW 3 0 .'.li " 
 
 v-'i * 38U -I t -'i 
 
 - n r ■ c- _-3 I S I 6f1 -■■ I • 
 
 • , :•.■■ or.*: 
 
 \ c:i '* :•• '■ • - 
 
 ' ’ ■■ ' 0 Cju:-r or i’ '' i- ■ 
 
 i 
 
 •» . J 
 
 sqi: 
 
 .1 ^^9 3ri — 1... 
 
 )e Vftrti QOfi or: 3 
 '•**v©woH . vt 
 
 Y3': r"; ‘T 
 
 ■ ■ ’ 1 3 0' 
 
 • . • ! t ^ Ai ^ 
 
 * I . 
 
 ■ 1 '' . *'. • i *1 V v' « V * 
 
 ,. . I- - ' r-iu oflj r-niMfe V-'' ' 
 
 '■ r. :M.a -OOvi .-.i • : -rl/ii- 
 
 •t •■.IS* '.ill’ - ■'•<.- or ' fjiTkV 
 
 .'J L^-.»jZ) v.*-'" r' ■•-■' ■•*.;{> 
 
 ■ J L 
 r' • .•'b ■ t 
 
 ; J :j;j J *; ob i t.' *iw=.^ -• 
 
 V 
 
-9- 
 
 9355.0-19 
 
 effectiveness, implementabi1ity, and cost analyses must be 
 based on a specific process within that technology category, 
 such as rotary kiln, to ground the analysis in hard data. 
 
 When the remedial action is bid, any process in that technology 
 category stated in the ROD would be eligible provided they 
 could match the performance goals of the process analyzed in 
 detail. 
 
 Applicability to Ongoing Projects 
 
 Superfund reauthorization affects a wide variety ot projects 
 in many different stages of development. The cleanup standards 
 provisions in §121 will affect ongoing projects in a particularly 
 unique way. For projects closest to ROD signature. Regional 
 managers and project managers should focus on whether an adequate 
 range of treatment alternatives was considered for feasibility, 
 and whether Federal and particularly State ARARs have been 
 thoroughly considered and will be met, unless a waiver is to be 
 invoked. If there is a sound basis for selecting and rejecting 
 alternatives under the new statutory requirements and preferences. 
 Regions should proceed to ROD signature and may postpone treatability 
 studies (that would otherwise be conducted in the RI/FS) until 
 remedial design. 
 
 On the other hand, projects in their early stages should be 
 modified to be consistent with the process outlined in this 
 guidance. In particular. Regions should assess the need tor 
 treatability testing and initiate immediately studies necessary 
 to ensure availability of needed data in the detailed analysis 
 phase. 
 
 Ground Water Operable Units 
 
 With the exception of specific statements in § 121(d)(2)(A) 
 
 (ii) and § 121(d)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), the cleanup standards pro¬ 
 visions apply most directly to source control measures. The 
 existing approach toward ground water remediation outlined in the 
 "Draft Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water 
 at Superfund Sites (September 29, 1986)" remains largely intact 
 with some modifications necessary to conform to SARA requirements 
 related to ARARs. Specific guidance on ARARs, including MCLGs and 
 WQC, will be provided in the near future. 
 
 The remedial approach outlined in the Draft Guidance derives 
 directly from EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy, which states 
 that ground waters should be protected differentially based on 
 characteristics of vulnerability, use and value. Superfund's Draft 
 Guidance calls for the development of a limited number of ground 
 water remedial alternatives within a performance range, defined in 
 terms of different remediation levels (the level of ground water 
 contaminant reduction achieved), and different rates of restoration 
 (the time required to achieve remediation levels). 
 
■■ 
 
 : 
 
 ■ , *1« 
 
 i \ i J 4 *■' 
 
 ' I 
 
 I r n 
 
 » j 
 
 ’ 4 
 
 o. 
 
 7 ., Ip , ip,4t*G^^ 8*;>0| 
 
 J> 
 
 M 
 
 ' b: 
 
 1 -fj 7 X.'W 
 
 . j - ^ :■ 
 
 ., ^’y-' - 
 
 ■■ .. 
 
 .'. .* iTir »■ .1 i* V 
 
 r. I • 
 
 1 
 
 ^ O’* >si^A 
 
 i I 
 
 'V - 1 5 - I I 
 
 iv^’.'lo i. 
 
 1. 
 
 I . L. .'.'U 
 " C tv i 
 '■ ■' hl-‘ 
 
 • -j ■ •* 
 
 . / 
 
 '-■ >1 . . 
 
 r »• :: j i ... 
 ■ ■' U t i .1 ■' ' '' 
 
 1 . 
 
 □ Q?, 
 
 '■'. f pu?"! L .;l‘2 
 
 ,-i :■ \< ut>(u ni 
 . ni j v<:-m 
 
 ■> - ■' . \;8W-’Si. ^Di nu 
 
 . '• . ... ■ .bf.. ;• 1 9 ;?aniim 
 
 ’ Pt^i: .’ ■■ • ■' > •|^4e.l 
 
 ..-b • jDi e:POD •“■ -" il t 
 
 •. , d jwn:? 51 - .'.11. 
 
 > t. I ..s.T : % 
 
 . rH '-- 
 
 t . : 
 
 . j.. . fc.b Pi>.':.,i; 
 
 ..i ~ ’ .". . h , 
 
 
 1 f.' 
 
 
 ' t ."I .' 
 '■< V11 • 
 
 srlJo .1 * 
 
 a s : i o P or; «( .7 ^ 1 bOtt 
 
 •f-s '■ {. ’ 24 :}'ip*; . '"'pftt i wp 
 
 ., :■ ; ;f *€ .1 v:» » . i .^<^>1 
 
 V I • '. ' . T' \ ' VB •8'S,U» ^ '' !» 03 
 
 • r»aart|| 
 
 jpuQixy 
 
 ■..' j 
 
 ( 
 
 ji. p . 
 
 i .. r» t 
 
 PC ' 
 
 ^ i ci . . A ) ' ( • i ) 
 
 : ^ ) s-r. -'I «lv 
 
 . ■ ivvv..’K a; ioqi -■ 'z:%t 
 
 P": o .*■» i " ■'. ■'’ ' (0" 
 
 ■'•' ■'. ' ) Ti-j- ' ':>? t* 
 
 •■'. .-^iw 
 
 ' 0:J 
 
 •’. ■ - . /pog -«d iiiw 
 
 : * : BriT 
 
 ' A’i ' tno’i'i u 
 
 - • ' W bnuo':!^ 
 
 . :3il9i9 
 1%:: ton 
 ■ '■ Ittmit 
 
 p'ltO)>b |j 
 
 • ■>' I 
 
 :rf\: 
 
 •J 
 
 r •* 
 
 pn 
 
 ■•c - 
 
 - Ci'-jt . 
 
-10 - 
 
 9355.0 -19 
 
 Factors that influence a decision regarding the appropriate 
 rate of restoration are: 
 
 ® Feasibility of providing an alternative water supply; 
 
 ° Current use of ground water; 
 
 ® Potential need for ground water; 
 
 ° Effectiveness and reliability of institutional 
 controls; 
 
 ° Ability to monitor and control the movement of 
 contaminants in ground water; 
 
 ° Other risks borne by the affected population; and 
 
 ° Population sensitivities. 
 
 Additionally, limiting the extent of contamination, the impact 
 of contamination on environmental receptors, the technical practi¬ 
 cability and the cost of alternatives should also be analyzed and 
 factored into the decision-making process. 
 
 Should you have any questions concerning this guidance, please 
 contact Bill Hanson (FTS 382-2345) in the Hazardous Site Control 
 Division or John Cross (FTS 475-6770) in the CERCLA Enforcement 
 Division. 
 
ihl!ERii-i GiiiDHlvICF ON 
 SUPFRF! !MD SEi EC i IHM 
 CE RE-ilEDY 
 
 nSEIE EY' 
 
 -•r CT err 
 
 “> .^r /r i ^ 
 
 ( >-■ i 9 
 
 Hazardous Waste Research 
 and Information Center 
 Library 
 
 One East Hazelwood Drive 
 Champaign, IL 61820 
 217/333-8957 
 
 PEiCPEJiTy Qc 
 
 HWRJC USriAR\ 
 
 OMCO