04/29/91
RCRA Corrective Action Decision Documents: The Statement of Basis and Res
OSWER Directive No. 9902.6
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on RCRA Corrective Action Decision Documents:
Statement of Basis and Response to Comments
FROM: /s/ Don R. Clay
Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I - X
Frank Covington, NEIC
The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, in consultation with the
Office of Solid Waste, Office of General Counsel, Office of Enforcement, and
the Regions, has drafted guidance for documenting RCRA corrective action
decisions. The guidance presents standard formats for documenting RCRA
corrective action decisions and promotes clear and logical presentations of
rationales for remedy selection.
We appreciate the comments received from the Regions and have
incorporated most of them into the guidance. Other issues raised by the
Regions, such as the development of national cleanup criteria and additional
guidance on the use of the remedy decision factors, were not within the
scope of this guidance. These issues will be addressed by Subpart S, once
promulgated, or in subsequent guidance.
Thank you for your assistance in developing this document. If you or
your staff have any questions on this guidance, please contact Tracy Back
( 382-3122 ).
Attachment
cc: Kathie Stein, Office of Enforcement
Lisa Friedman, Office of General Counsel
Sylvia Lowrance, Office of Solid Waste
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 Purpose of this Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 Overview of the RCRA Corrective Action Process . . . . 1-2
1.2.1 The RCRA Facility Assessment ( RFA ) . . . . . 1-2
1.2.2 Interim Measures ( IM ) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1.2.3 RCRA Facility Investigation ( RFI ) . . . . . . 1-5
1.2.4 Corrective Measures Study ( CMS ) . . . . . . . 1-5
1.2.4.1 Public Comment Period for Selection
of Remedy(ies) . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
1.2.4.2 Response to Comments ( RTC ) . . . . . . 1-6
1.2.5 Corrective Measures Implementation ( CMI ) . . . 1-8
1.3 Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
2 WRITING THE STATEMENT OF BASIS ( SB ) . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 Purpose of the Statement of Basis . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.3 Writing the Statement of Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2.4 Section by Section Description of the
Statement of Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.4.2 Proposed Remedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.4.3 Facility Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2.4.4 Summary of Facility Risks . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.4.5 Scope of Corrective Action . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.4.6 Summary of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.4.7 Evaluation of the Proposed Remedy and
Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2.5 Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
3 THE NEWSPAPER NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION
AND AVAILABILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 Writing the Newspaper Notification . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.2.1 Section by Section Description of the
Newspaper Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3.3 Public Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Continued )
CHAPTER PAGE
4 ELEMENTS OF THE FINAL DECISION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS . . 4-1
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.2 Purpose of the Response to Comments . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.3 Writing the Response to Comments . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.4 Section by Section Description of the Response
to Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.4.2 Selected Remedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.4.3 Public Participation Activities . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.4.4 Comments Raised During the Comment Period
and the Agency's Response . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.4.5 Future Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.4.6 Declarations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
5 DOCUMENTING LIMITED SCOPE REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND
CONTINGENCY REMEDY DECISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.1 Documenting a "Limited Scope Remedial Actions" Decision 5-1
5.2 Decision Documents with Contingency Remedies . . . . . . 5-1
6 EXAMPLE STATEMENT OF BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.1 Example Statement of Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
7 EXAMPLE FINAL DECISION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS . . . . . . . 7-1
7.1 Example Final decision and Response to Comments . . . . . 7-1
8 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
- ii -
LIST OF EXHIBITS
NUMBER PAGE
2-1 Outline for the Statement of Basis . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2-2 Standards That May Apply to RCRA Corrective Actions . . 2-10
3-1 Summary of Section 124.10(d) Public Notice Requirements . . 3-3
4-1 Final Decision and Response to Comments . . . . . . . . . 4-3
- iii -
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER PAGE
1-1 RCRA Corrective Action Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1-2 Evaluation Criteria for Corrective Measures . . . . . . . 1-7
2-1 The Corrective Action Decision Making Process . . . . . . 2-2
6-1 EIO Industrial Company Facility and Surroundings . . . . . 6-3
7-1 EIO Industrial Company Facility and Surroundings
Showing Contaminated Ground Water Plume . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
- iv -
This guidance is a general statement of policy; it does not establish or
affect legal rights or responsibilities; it does not establish a binding
norm and is not finally determinative of the issues addressed; Agency
decisions in any particular case will be made applying the law and
regulations on the basis of specific facts and actual action.
- v -
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDANCE
This guidance on preparing Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
( RCRA ) Statement of Basis Documents and the Response to Comments ( RTC )
has been developed to present standard formats for documenting RCRA
corrective action decisions and to clarify the roles and responsibilities of
the regulatory agency in developing and issuing decision documents. The
decision documents addressed by this guidance are the Statement of Basis
( SB ) and the RTC. SBs and RTCs should be prepared when corrective action
is implemented through either a permit or enforcement order. The SB and RTC
represent documents similar in purpose to the proposed remedial action plan
and Record of Decision ( ROD ) employed by the Superfund program to fulfill
the requirements set forth under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA ).
This guidance has been prepared on the basis of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 ( HSWA ), the final National Oil and Hazardous
Waste Contingency Plan ( NCP ), the proposed 40 Code of Federal Regulations
( CFR ) 264 Subpart S and 40 CFR Part 124.
The primary purpose of the SB / RTC guidance is to standardize the
format of the SB and RTC. Remedies selected in the RCRA program may be
reviewed by the public on a national as well as a local level.
Standardizing these remedy decision documents will:
o Provide consistency among Regions with respect to the organization
and content of decision documents
o Promote clear and logical presentations of rationales for remedy
selection decisions based on facility-specific information and
supporting analysis.
The chapters included in this guidance address the following aspects of
the RCRA remedy selection process:
Chapter 2 presents the standard format for the SB and discusses key
elements to be included in each section.
Chapter 3 presents the standard format for the public notification
of the public comment period.
- 1-1 -
Chapter 4 discusses the standard format for the Response to
Comments ( RTC ) and discusses key elements to be included in each
section.
Chapter 5 discusses the documentation of no effective remedial
action and contingency remedy decisions.
Chapter 6 presents an example SB after which individual
site-specific SBs can be patterned.
Chapter 7 presents an example RTC after which individual
site-specific RTCs can be patterned. The RTC presented in this
guidance includes the regulatory agency's response to comments, in
addition to a brief description of the selected remedy and
rationale behind the selection.
This guidance does not address situations when the selected remedy is
changed or modified after the permit modification has become final or an
enforcement order implementing the remedy has been issued. Procedures
undertaken to reflect the amended remedy should proceed in accordance with
either 40 CFR Part 124 or the terms specified in the enforcement order.
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS
This section describes the relationship between the decision documents
addressed in this guidance and the overall RCRA corrective action process
( Figure 1-1 ). Each stage of the corrective action process is briefly
summarized below.
1.2.1 THE RCRA FACILITY ASSESSMENT
The RCRA Facility Assessment ( RFA ) is often the first step in the
corrective action process. An RFA ( or equivalent investigation ) is
conducted prior to the issuance of a permit, and in many cases, prior to the
issuance of a corrective action order.
The RFA is a process for:
o Identifying and gathering information on releases at RCRA
facilities
o Evaluating and identifying solid waste management units ( SWMUs ),
regulated units, and other areas of concern for releases to all
media ( additional SWMUs may be identified after the RFA as a
result of further investigations )
- 1-2 -
o Making preliminary determinations regarding releases of concern and
the need for further actions and interim measures at the facility
o Screening from further investigations those SWMUs which do not pose
a threat to human health and/or the environment
o Helping the regulatory agency to identify, evaluate, prioritize,
and to initially clean up those facilities which present or may
present the greatest threat to human health and the environment as
prescribed in the Environmental Priorities Initiative ( EPI ).
During the RFA, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or State
investigators will gather information on SWMUs and other areas of concern at
RCRA facilities, evaluate this information to determine whether there are
releases that warrant further investigation or other action at these
facilities, and upon completion of the RFA, determine the need to proceed to
the second phase ( RCRA Facility Investigation ( RFI ) ) of the process.
Each of the three steps of the RFA process requires the collection and
analysis of data to support initial release determinations:
Step 1: The preliminary review focuses primarily on evaluating existing
information.
Step 2: The visual site inspection entails the onsite collection of visual
information to obtain additional evidence of release.
Step 3: The sampling visit fills any data gaps that remain upon completion
of the preliminary review and visual site inspection by obtaining
sampling and field data. Sampling is not always necessary if
sufficient data was gathered during steps 1 and 2 of the RFA
process to adequately identify the hazards at the facility.
1.2.2 INTERIM MEASURES
Interim measures ( IM ) for corrective action may be initiated, when
appropriate, prior to the initiation or completion of the RFI, Corrective
Measures Study ( CMS ), or Corrective Measures Implementation ( CMI ).
Decisions concerning IMs are made based on the immediacy and magnitude of
the potential threat to human health or the environment, and the
implications of deferring the corrective action until the RFI / CMS is
completed. Implementation of IMs must be consistent with regulatory agency
priorities and must be based on protection of human health and the
environment. It is not necessary to prepare a SB or a public notice for IMs
implementation.
- 1-4 -
1.2.3 RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION
If the regulatory agency determines that a RFI is necessary, the owner
or operator will be required to perform a RFI either under a permit schedule
of compliance or under an enforcement order. This determination will
generally be based on the results of the RFA and will identify specific
units or releases needing further investigation. The RFI can range widely
from a small specific activity to a complex multimedia study. The
investigation generally includes the characterization / identification of
the hydrogeological setting, the type and concentration of hazardous waste
or hazardous constituents released, the rate and direction at which the
releases are migrating, and the extent over which releases have migrated.
The regulatory agency ensures that data and information submitted by the
owner or operator during the RFI adequately describe the release(s), and can
be used to make decisions regarding the need for and focus of a CMS. The
RFI also includes a comparison of release characterization data against
established health and environmental criteria. At the completion of the
RFI, a report is prepared by the owner or operator summarizing the
investigation findings. The regulatory agency then interprets these results
to determine whether a CMS is necessary.
Information generated during the RFI is used not only to determine the
potential need for CMI, but also to aid in the selection and implementation
of these measures. While conducting the RFI, the owner or operator must
collect data which may be needed to select and implement the appropriate
remedy(ies). The findings of the RFI provide the rationale and basis for
the CMS.
1.2.4 CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY
If the need for corrective measures is verified during the RFI process,
the owner or operator is then responsible for performing a CMS. During this
step in the corrective action process, the owner or operator will identify,
evaluate, and recommend specific remedies that will remediate the release(s)
based on a detailed engineering evaluation of the data and the corrective
measure technologies. For some facilities, the CMS may be relatively
straight forward, and an extensive evaluation of a number of remedial
alternatives will not be necessary. The remedies evaluated by the owner or
operator, along with the owner or operator's recommendations, are documented
in a final report.
As discussed in the June 26, 1987 "Criteria for Elimination of
Headquarter's Concurrence on Selected RCRA Section 3008(h) Orders"
memorandum ( directive number 9904.3 ), U.S. EPA Headquarters maintains a
21-day consultation role for corrective measures decisions made in
conjunction with Section 3008(h) orders. When the 21-day consultation is in
effect, regions should submit the order or corrective measures decision to
Headquarters for review. If Headquarters does not raise issues during the
consultation period, then agreement can be assumed and the region may issue
the order or decision. If a disagreement between Headquarters and regional
staff cannot be resolved, then
- 1-5 -
the outstanding issues should be raised with management.
1.2.4.1 Public Comment Period for Selection of Remedy(ies)
The regulatory agency's proposed remedy for a facility is presented to
the public in a SB, and, where applicable, the draft permit modification.
The SB provides a brief summary of all of the alternatives studied in the
detailed analysis phase of the RFI / CMS, highlighting the key factors that
led to the identification of the proposed remedy. SBs prepared in
conjunction with draft permit modifications must be drafted in accordance
with 40 CFR 124.7. However, these regulations and this guidance supplement
each other and may be used in concert to draft SBs.
The remedy proposed in the SB is one that best meets the applicable
standards for remedies and decision factors presented in Figure 1-2. The
remedy selection process as presented in this guidance is simply to be used
as guidance until the Subpart S regulations are promulgated. These decision
factors are further discussed in the proposed Subpart S rule. The SB is
made available for public comment, in addition to the administrative record,
including the RFI and CMS Reports, and, where applicable, the draft permit
modification. The public may comment on the RFI and CMS, as well as the
proposed remedy, at this time. If warranted, the regulatory agency may
require the owner or operator to perform additional CMSs in response to
public comment. Additional studies may be conducted pursuant to a modified
enforcement order, a new enforcement order, or permit conditions.
1.2.4.2 Response to Comments
Following receipt of public comments, the regulatory agency is required
to prepare a RTC prior to the issuance of any final permit decision pursuant
to 40 CFR 124.17. This RTC must be prepared in accordance with 40 CFR
124.17. A RTC should also be prepared after the public comment period but
prior to those facilities undertaking corrective action pursuant to an
enforcement order. If the proposed remedy is selected for implementation,
RTCs should be finalized within 30 work-days after the public comment period
ends. More time may be needed to finalize RTCs when the proposed remedy is
not selected for implementation.
The regulatory agency's response to public comments and the remedy(ies)
selected by the regulatory agency should also be documented in the RTC. A
RTC which documents the selected remedy for a facility will serve three
basic functions:
o Responds to comments received during, or prior to the public
comment period
o Describes the technical parameters of the selected remedy,
specifying the treatment, engineering, and institutional
components, as well as
- 1-6 -
remediation goals
o Provides the public with a consolidated source of information about
the facility and the chosen remedy, including the rationale behind
the selection.
1.2.5 CORRECTIVE MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION
The permit modification or corrective action order provides the
framework for the transition into the next phase of the remedial process,
CMI. The CMI program includes designing, constructing, operating,
maintaining, and monitoring the performance of the remedy(ies) selected to
protect human health and the environment.
1.3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This guidance addresses only the preparation of the SB and RTC. Other
guidance documents that address other stages of the corrective action
process are also available. Because preparation of the SB relies to a great
extent on the information collected and analyzed during the RFI / CMS
process, the RFI Guidance ( OSWER Directive 9502.00-6D, May 1989 ) may be
particularly useful. Many portions of the SB contain summaries of
information that are generated during the RFI and CMS. Additional sources
of information on the corrective action process and remedy selection are
listed in Chapter 8 of this guidance.
- 1-8 -
CHAPTER 2
WRITING THE STATEMENT OF BASIS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
EPA is committed to providing a meaningful opportunity for the public to
be informed of and participate in decisions that affect them and their
communities. The administrative record is the basis for corrective action
decisions and can be a tool in fulfilling EPA's public involvement
objectives. The SB and draft permit modification ( if applicable ) are the
public participation documents that summarize the corrective action options
and preferences and solicit public comment. This chapter presents the
purpose of the SB and a suggested outline and format for drafting it.
2.2 PURPOSE OF THE STATEMENT OF BASIS
The administrative record is the documentation assembled during the
corrective action process. Figure 2-1 provides an overview of this process.
The SB summarizes the information contained in the RFI / CMS reports and the
administrative record, and is designed to facilitate public participation in
the remedy selection process by:
o Identifying the proposed remedy for a corrective action at a
facility and explaining the reasons for the proposal
o Describing other remedies that were considered in detail in the RFI
and CMS reports
o Soliciting public review and comment on all possible remedies
considered in the RFI and CMS reports, and on any other plausible
remedies
o Providing information on how the public can be involved in the
remedy selection process.
The SB is a public participation document and is expected to be widely
read. The SB, therefore, should be written in a clear and concise manner
using nontechnical language. In addition, the SB should direct the public
to the RFI and CMS reports as the primary source of detailed information on
the corrective measures analyzed, as well as other site-specific
information.
The SB describes the proposed remedy, but does not select the final
remedy for a facility. This approach allows for additional information to
be
- 2-1 -
considered during the public comment period. Following this period, public
comment and/or additional data may result in changes to the remedy or in
another choice or remedy. After the regulatory agency has considered all
comments from the public, the final decision, selecting the remedy, or
determining the need to develop another option, is documented in the RTC.
In emphasizing that the proposed remedy is only an initial
recommendation, the SB should clearly state that changes to the proposed
remedy, or a change from the proposed remedy to another alternative, may be
made if public comments or additional data indicate that such a change would
result in a more appropriate solution. The final decision regarding the
selected remedy(ies) should be documented in the final permit modification
( if applicable ) with the accompanying RTC after the regulatory agency has
taken into consideration all comments from the public. An important
function of the SB is to solicit public comment on all possible alternatives
( alternatives not evaluated in the CMS may be proposed by the public at
this time ).
2.3 WRITING THE STATEMENT OF BASIS
The SB summarizes essential information from the RFI and CMS reports.
The RFI and CMS reports should be referenced in the SB. The SB should:
o Briefly summarize the environmental conditions at the facility as
determined during the RFI
o Identify the proposed remedy
o Describe the remedial alternatives evaluated in sufficient detail
to provide a reasonable explanation of each remedy
o Provide a brief analysis that supports the proposed remedy,
discussed in terms of the evaluation criteria.
Exhibit 2-1 provides a recommended outline of the SB. Variations to the
outline may be made as appropriate.
The following subsections provide more specific guidance on the key
elements of the SB.
- 2-3 -
EXHIBIT 2-1
OUTLINE FOR THE STATEMENT OF BASIS
INTRODUCTION
o Provide facility name and location.
o Introduce document's purpose, which is to:
- Identify proposed remedy and explain rationale for preference
- Describe all remedies analyzed
- Serve as companion to the RFI / CMS and administrative record
file
- Solicit public involvement in selection of a remedy(ies).
o Stress importance of public input on all alternatives, including
options not previously studied.
PROPOSED REMEDY
o Identify proposed remedy.
FACILITY BACKGROUND
o Provide brief overview of site.
o Describe site history.
o Provide brief summary of the RFI.
SUMMARY OF FACILITY RISKS
o Provide an overview of the following:
- Contaminated media
- Chemicals of concern
- Baseline exposure scenarios ( e.g., routes of exposure --
current and future land-use scenarios )
- Current and potential facility risks ( including both
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic threats ).
o Discuss ecological risk(s), as appropriate.
SCOPE OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
o Describe scope of problem that the remedy will address.
o If it is a phased remedy, describe the role that each phase will
address.
o Identify how the remedy or each phase of the remedy addresses the
problem.
- 2-4 -
EXHIBIT 2-1 ( continued )
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
o Provide brief narrative description of alternatives evaluated in
detail during the CMS ( may include engineering components,
treatment components, estimated present worth cost, implementation
time, and the major standards associated with the alternative(s) ).
EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED REMEDY AND ALTERNATIVES
o Introduce the evaluation criteria.
o Provide the rationale for the proposed remedy by profiling it
against the evaluation criteria and highlighting how it compares
with the other remedies.
o Discuss methods that will be used to monitor the remedy's
effectiveness.
o Discuss how the proposed remedy will protect human health and the
environment.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION */
*/ Public includes the general public, the owner or operator, and other
parties ( e.g., public interest groups, other regulatory agencies ).
o Describe previous or ongoing public participation activities and
how they impacted the remedy evaluation ( if appropriate ).
o Provide notice of public comment period ( written comments are
encouraged ).
o Note time and place for a public meeting(s) ( if they are
scheduled ) or offer opportunity for meeting.
o Provide the location of administrative record files and information
repositories and times that the record is available for review
( e.g., 9-5 weekdays, or only upon appointment ).
o Name and phone number of person to contact for more information.
- 2-5 -
2.4 SECTION BY SECTION DESCRIPTION OF THE STATEMENT OF BASIS
2.4.1 INTRODUCTION
This introductory section should include the facility name and location.
The public should be informed of the function of the SB in the remedy
selection process, specifically, that its fourfold purpose is to:
o Identify the proposed remedy for corrective action at a facility
and explain the reasons for the proposal
o Describe the other remedial options considered in detail in the CMS
report
o Solicit public review of and comment on all remedial alternatives,
including those not previously studied
o Provide information on how the public can be involved in the remedy
selection process.
A clear statement should be made that the SB highlights key information
from the RFT and CMS reports but is not a substitute for these documents.
The SB should refer the reader to the RFT and CMS reports and administrative
record as more complete sources of information regarding the corrective
action. The first section of the SB should stress that public input on all
alternatives, and on the information that supports the alternatives, is an
important contribution to the remedy selection process. The public should
be encouraged to submit comments and should be informed that their comments
can influence the regulatory agency's proposal. The point should be made
that the final corrective action plan, as presented in the final permit
modification or corrective action order and RTC, could be different from the
proposed remedy, depending upon new information or an argument that the
regulatory agency may consider as a result of public comments.
2.4.2 PROPOSED REMEDY
The proposed remedy should be identified. Further discussion of the
proposed remedy in terms of the decision criteria should be included in the
"Evaluation of Alternatives" section of the SB.
2.4.3 FACILITY BACKGROUND
The facility background should include a facility map depicting the
facility's location and the areas of concern. This section should also
include a brief description of the facility, including the history of waste
- 2-6 -
generation, management, treatment, storage, and/or disposal that has taken
place, the major contaminants of concern, the contaminated media, and the
extent of contamination.
2.4.4 SUMMARY OF FACILITY RISKS
Although performing a risk assessment ( RA ) is not a requirement of the
corrective action process, it is strongly recommended that a RA be conducted
as a part of the RFI. The scope of the RA will depend on facility
characteristics. This section of the SB should summarize the extent of
contamination at the facility and the risks posed to human health and the
environment using information developed during the RFI. The summary of
facility risks should include key findings made in the baseline risk
assessment conducted as part of the RFI. This discussion should:
o Identify contaminated media
o Identify contaminants of concern
o Describe exposure pathways ( e.g., routes of exposure -- ground
water, surface water, air, and soil )
o Describe the potentially exposed population
o Discuss environmental risks as appropriate ( ecological receptors
potential exposures, and potential effects of exposures )
o Describe how current risks compare to remediation goals ( the
overall remediation goal of 10(-6) should be used as the point of
departure in situations where there are no existing standards, such
as MCLs ).
The description of facility risks should not rely solely on standard
numeric risk representations ( such as cancer risks of 10(-3) or a hazard
quotient value of 22 ). These risk numbers should be accompanied by a
discussion that explains, for example, that a cancer risk level of 10(-3)
means that one additional person out of a thousand is at risk of developing
cancer if the facility is not cleaned up. Similarly, for noncarcinogenic
effects, the discussion of the hazard quotient and hazard index should state
that a hazard quotient ( the ratio of the level of exposure to an acceptable
level ) greater than 1.0 indicates that the exposure level exceeds the
protective level for that particular chemical. If the hazard quotients for
individual chemicals are less than 1.0 but the sum of the sum of the hazard
quotients for all substances in an exposure medium ( i.e., the hazard
index ) is greater than 1.0, then there may be a concern for potential
health effects.
- 2-7 -
In addition, for proposed remedies other than "no action," this section
of the SB should include a statement such as:
"Actual or threatened releases of hazardous constituents from this
facility, if not addressed by the proposed remedy or another remedy, may
present a current or potential threat to human health and the
environment."
2.4.5 SCOPE OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
This section of the SB should summarize the overall strategy for
remediating the facility and describe how the remedy being considered in the
SB fits into that overall strategy.
If the response is being carried out in a phased CMI plan, the purpose
of each phase and their sequence should be described. For example, the
following language could be included in this section:
"This is the second on three planned phases for the facility. The first
phase provided the community with an alternate water supply to prevent
ingestion of contaminated ground water. This phase addresses
remediation of the contaminated ground water, one of the principal
threats posed by the facility. The third and final phase will address
the contaminated soil, which represents the source of the ground water
contamination which is the other principal threat posed by the
facility."
As the above example illustrates, the SB's description of the overall
facility strategy and the function of the proposed remedy should indicate
how and through what action or series of actions the principal threats posed
by the facility will be addressed. This section of the SB should help
establish the basis for the finding made in the RTC as to whether or not the
selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment.
2.4.6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
The Summary of Alternatives section should provide a brief narrative of
the remedies studied in the detailed analysis phase of the CMS report. This
description may include the treatment technology(ies); engineering controls;
institutional controls; quantities of waste handled; implementation
requirements; estimated construction, operation, and maintenance costs; and
estimated implementation time frame associated with each remedy.
- 2-8 -
These descriptions also should incorporate the major standards
associated with each option. For example, standards associated with a
source control remedy, such as RCRA Subtitle C or D closure standards,
should be incorporated into the discussion, as appropriate. For treatment
based remedies, the standards associated with treating hazardous substances
( e.g., RCRA land disposal restrictions, RCRA incineration standards in
Subpart O, Clean Air Act Standards, etc. ) should also be described.
Exhibit 2-2 lists standards that may be discussed in describing the
remedies.
2.4.7 EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED REMEDY AND ALTERNATIVES
This section should begin by identifying the proposed remedy. Next, the
evaluation criteria used to evaluate the alternatives in the detailed
analysis in the CMS should be presented. The evaluation criteria encompass
four general standards and five corrective measure selection decision
factors that assist in gauging the overall effectiveness of the remedial
alternatives. Figure 1-2 presents information on the organization of the
criteria and the major points that should be considered under each
criterion. The SB should summarize all alternatives with respect to the
applicable criteria. More specifically, the SB should address the following
elements with regard to the proposed remedy:
o The section should include a description of the technical features
of the remedy. This description must be complete enough to enable
a reviewer to determine that it complies with the standards for
protectiveness, attainment of media cleanup standards, source
control, and waste management practices imposed on all RCRA
remedies.
o Media cleanup standards should be identified.
o The conditions that the owner or operator must fulfill to
demonstrate compliance with the media cleanup standards established
in the remedy selection process should be discussed. In addition,
any techniques that will be used to monitor the remedy's
effectiveness should also be discussed. For example, a modified
permit / enforcement order might require the owner or operator to
continue monitoring ground water over a set period after a cleanup
standard has been achieved to ensure that the level is not
subsequently exceeded. In addition, the permit / enforcement order
might discuss the cleanup standards that apply to the media
undergoing corrective action. Again, specific details on
compliance measurements might not be available at remedy selection,
but would be addressed through remedy design.
o Any procedures the owner or operator must follow to remove,
decontaminate, or close units or structures during remedy
implementation should be discussed, as well as any post-closure
care requirements that will be imposed.
- 2-9 -
EXHIBIT 2-2
STANDARDS THAT MAY APPLY
TO RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
o Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA ):
- Maximum Contaminant Levels ( MCLs ); and
- MCL Goals ( MCLGs ).
o Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA ) Subtitle C
( Hazardous Waste Requirements ):
- Closure ( i.e., landfill or clean closure )
- Subpart F Ground Water Monitoring ( including post-closure
care )
- Subpart X Miscellaneous Units
- Subpart AA Accelerated Air Emissions Standards
- Location Standards
- Minimum Technology
- Subpart O Incineration
- Land Disposal Restrictions
- Unit-Specific Design and Operating Standards ( e.g., for tanks,
containers )
- Part 261 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
- Part 262 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
- Part 263 - Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous
Waste
- Proposed Subpart S Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management
Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities.
o RCRA Subtitle D ( Solid Waste Requirements ).
o Clean Water Act:
- Federal Water Quality Criteria ( FWQC )
- Publicly-Owned Treatment Works ( POTW ) standards
- Effluent Limitations and Guidelines
- Requirements for Dredge and Fill Activities.
o Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA ):
- Polychlorinated biphenyls ( PCB ) Standards.
o Clean Air Act ( CAA ):
- National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS )
- State Implementation Plan ( SIP ).
o State Standards.
- 2-10 -
o This section should discuss the schedule for initiating and
completing all major technical features and milestones of the
remedy.
The SB should use the evaluation criteria to profile the performance of
the proposed remedy. In addition, the proposed remedy should be briefly
compared to the other alternatives under the appropriate criteria.
The conclusion of this section of the SB should include a summary that
says, based on information currently available, the proposed remedy provides
the best balance of tradeoffs among the alternatives with respect to the
evaluation criteria. This section should state that the proposed remedy
satisfies the following criteria:
o Be protective of human health and the environment
o Control the sources of releases so as to reduce or eliminate, to
the maximum extent practicable, further releases that may pose a
threat to human health and the environment
o Attain the media cleanup standards
o Comply with applicable standards for management of wastes.
2.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public should be informed of the following:
o Dates of the public comment period
o Date(s), time(s), and location(s) of the public meeting(s)
scheduled ( offer to hold a meeting upon request if one has not
been scheduled )
o Location of information repositories and administrative record
file(s), and hours of availability
o Names, phone numbers, and addresses of the regulatory agency
personnel who will receive comments or supply additional
information.
- 2-11 -
CHAPTER 3
THE NEWSPAPER NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION
AND AVAILABILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
This chapter summarizes the guidelines for the newspaper notification,
which announces the availability of the SB, the RFI / CMS reports, the
administrative record, and, where applicable, the draft permit modification.
In addition, the newspaper notification presents guidance on procedures for
the public comment period.
3.1 PROCEDURES
Upon completion of the RFI and CMS, the agency should prepare a SB and
draft permit modification ( where applicable ) and notify the public of the
availability of the RFI / CMS reports, SB, draft permit modification ( where
applicable ), and administrative record. The following guidelines are
recommended:
o Publish a notice and brief analysis of the SB and make the
appropriate documents available to the public.
o Include sufficient information in the notice and analysis as may be
necessary to provide a reasonable explanation of the proposed
remedy and a list of the remedial alternatives analyzed during the
CMS.
o Publication should include, at a minimum, publication in a major
local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, each item
developed, received, published, or made available to the public
should be available for public inspection and copying at or near
the facility or site where the corrective action is being
considered. Public libraries, schools, and county courthouses can
be used to house a copy of the administrative record when the
facility is not located in proximity to the regional or state
office.
o In addition to English, publications should be printed in dominant
second languages where applicable.
For those facilities undertaking corrective action to satisfy permit
conditions, the agency must notify the public of the availability of the
RFI / CMS reports and the draft permit modification pursuant to 40 CFR Part
124.10.
- 3-1 -
3.2 WRITING THE NEWSPAPER NOTIFICATION
The agency's newspaper notification should include a brief abstract of
the SB, which describes the remedial alternatives analyzed during the CMS
and identifies the proposed remedy. The notice should be published in a
widely read section of the newspaper, rather than in the classified
advertisements, obituary section, or legal notices. Key elements of the
notification are summarized below.
3.2.1 SECTION BY SECTION DESCRIPTION OF THE NEWSPAPER NOTIFICATION
Newspaper notifications of permit actions must be prepared in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 124.10(d). Exhibit 3-1 lists requirements for public
notices pursuant to 40 CFR Part 124.10(d). Newspaper notifications prepared
for a facility undergoing corrective action under an enforcement order
should also discuss the specific items specified in 40 CFR 124.10(d). The
elements listed below provide an outline for the newspaper notification.
o Facility Name and Location. The notice should include the proper
facility name and location.
o The Date and Location of a Public meeting ( if scheduled ). If a
meeting has not been requested or scheduled, the notice should
inform the public of its right to request one.
o Public Participation. The notice should inform the public of its
role in the remedy selection process and provide the following
information:
- The location of the information repositories and administrative
record
- The methods by which the public may submit comments
- The dates of the public comment period.
o Identification of Proposed Remedy. A brief statement of the major
components of the proposed remedy should be included.
o Alternatives Evaluated in the Detailed Analysis. The notice should
list corrective measure alternatives evaluated in the detailed
analysis phase of the CMS.
o Request for Public Comments. The notice should emphasize that the
agency is soliciting public comment on all of the corrective
measure alternatives, as well as on the proposed remedy. It should
include a
- 3-2 -
EXHIBIT 3-1
SUMMARY OF SECTION 124.10(d) PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Public Notice Requirements
124.10(d)(1)(i) Name and address of office processing permit action.
124.10(d)(1)(ii) Name and address of permit applicant.
124.10(d)(1)(iii) Brief description of facility activities.
124.10(d)(1)(iv) Name and address of agency contact.
124.10(d)(1)(v) Brief description of the comment procedures.
124.10(d)(1)(vi) The location and availability of the administrative
record.
124.10(d)(1)(ix) Any additional information considered necessary or
proper.
Public Notice Requirements for Hearings
124.10(d)(2)(i) Date of previous public notices relating to permit.
124.10(d)(2)(ii) Date, time, and place of hearing.
124.10(d)(2)(iii) Brief description of the nature of hearing.
- 3-3 -
clear statement that the proposed remedy is only a preliminary
determination and that other options could be selected as the remedy
based upon public comment, new information, or a reevaluation of
existing information. The readers should be referred to the RFI / CMS
reports and other contents of the administrative record file for further
information on all of the remedial alternatives considered.
3.3 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
The agency should provide a reasonable opportunity for submission of
written and/or oral comments and an opportunity for a public meeting
regarding the proposed remedy, the RFI / CMS reports or any information
contained in the administrative record for the draft permit modification or
corrective action order. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.10(b), the agency must
allow at least 45 days for public comment on draft permit modifications. It
is recommended that 30 to 45 days be allowed for public comment on the
proposed remedy when the corrective action is implemented through an
enforcement order.
The agency should make the relevant documents available to the public at
the time the public comment period begins. In addition, the agency should
ensure that any factual information relied upon during the remedy selection
process is included as part of the administrative record and is available to
the public during the public comment period.
The agency is encouraged to respond to oral or written comments received
prior to the public comment period. However, the agency should inform
commenters that if they wish to ensure that comments submitted before the
comment period receive an agency response, they should resubmit comments
that were initially made during the RFI / CMS process during the formal
public comment period. Written comments should be included in the
administrative record.
Agency personnel may find it useful to request that comments voiced
during public hearings also be submitted in writing at that time. This
practice will help the agency to respond to the comments at a later date
should an immediate response not be available.
- 3-4 -
CHAPTER 4
ELEMENTS OF THE FINAL DECISION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
A RTC is prepared by the regulatory agency at the conclusion of the
public comment period. The RTC should include a brief summary of comments
received during the public comment period as well as activities ( e.g.,
public meetings ) undertaken by the regulatory agency. The summary should
respond to comments and discuss, where applicable:
o Identification of the selected remedy
o Any changes made to the proposed remedy due to comments
o Rationale for not selecting an alternate remedy or making revisions
to the selected remedy as suggested by a commenter(s)
o How the selected remedy differs from the community or owner or
operator's proposed remedy
o Any alternatives recommended that were not evaluated in the CMS and
why they were not included.
4.2 PURPOSE OF THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The RTC serves several purposes. First, the RTC identifies the selected
remedy. Second, it provides the regulatory agency decision makers with
information about community preferences regarding the remedial alternatives,
and general concerns about the facility. Third, it demonstrates how public
comments were integrated into the decision making process. Fourth, the RTC
provides a contemporaneous written record of the regulatory agency's RTC.
This will enable a court, or any interested party reviewing the selected
remedy, to determine whether the regulatory agency provided a reasonable RTC
in the record. An adequate RTC is essential in defending final permit
modifications or orders during remedy implementation negotiations or in
judicial proceedings.
To serve these purposes, the RTC should be a concise and complete
summary of comments received from the public, including the owner or
operator, during the public comment period. The comments should be
accompanied by the
- 4-1 -
regulatory agency's responses. Responses should be clear, accurate, and
carefully written. Exhibit 4-1 presents an outline that may be used to
draft the RTC.
The RTC is prepared for the signature of the Regional Administrator
( RA ) or the signatory of the document that is implementing the corrective
action ( e.g., corrective action order or permit modification ). The final
permit modification should be accompanied by the RTC. If the selected
remedy differs from the proposed remedy as discussed in the SB, the final
permit modification or order will reflect such changes. These changes
should be specified and explained in the RTC ( refer to 40 CFR 124.17(a)(1)
for permit modifications ).
In the event that comments are not submitted during or prior to the
public comment period, nor is a public hearing requested, a RTC should still
be prepared. In such cases, the RTC will present the selected remedy, state
that comments were not submitted, and include a declaration that the
selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment.
4.3 WRITING THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The RTC should:
o Identify the selected remedy(ies), taking into account the comments
received during the public comment period
o Identify comments raised during the public comment period
o Respond to public comments
o Discuss any future actions that will accompany the implementation
of the selected remedy.
Additional guidance on preparing the RTC is available in "Guidance on
Public Involvement in the RCRA Permiting Program," ( OSWER Directive
9500.00-1A, January 1986 ).
4.4 SECTION BY SECTION DESCRIPTION OF THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
4.4.1 INTRODUCTION
This introductory section should include the facility name and location.
The public should be informed of the function of the RTC in the remedy
selection process. Most importantly, this section should clearly explain
how the regulatory agency considered and responded to the comments received.
- 4-2 -
EXHIBIT 4-1
FINAL DECISION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
( FACILITY NAME )
INTRODUCTION
The RTC documents for the public record:
o Concerns and issues raised during corrective action planning
o Comments raised during the comment period on the proposed remedy,
RFI, or CMS
o How the regulatory agency considered and responded to these
concerns.
SELECTED REMEDY
Briefly discuss:
o The remedy(ies) selected for implementation at the facility
o Brief justification to support the selection of the corrective
measure(s) using the evaluation criteria.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
Briefly discuss:
o Activities conducted by the regulatory agency to elicit public
participation and to address specific concerns and issues ( e.g.,
small group meeting, news conference, and progress reports )
o The extent of the public comment period, when it started and ended
o Note whether regulatory agency staff met with concerned citizens or
conducted other communication activities during the comment period,
such as a public meeting or availability of technical staff to
respond to questions. Mention the location, time, and level of
attendance of public meeting(s), if held.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THE AGENCY'S RESPONSE
Briefly describe comments on the proposed remedy, RFI, or CMS from other
regulatory agencies, local officials, and private citizens. Comments should
be immediately followed by the regulatory agency's
- 4-3 -
EXHIBIT 4-1 ( Continued )
response. This section should address the following ( where applicable ):
o Categorize comments by major issue or topic addressed, where
appropriate.
o Provide a verbatim list of the comments received, each followed by
the regulatory agency's response. Where necessary, the comments
and responses can be summarized under the categories as completely
as possible.
o Discuss the level of concern over each of the major issues.
o Document any modifications or changes in the proposed remedy as a
result of comments.
o Give the reasons for rejecting the public's, or owner's, or
operator's proposed remedy if the regulatory agency's selected
remedy is different.
o Document, in detail, any remedial alternatives provided by the
public which were not evaluated in the CMS, and explain why they
were not evaluated.
FUTURE ACTIONS
Briefly explain:
o Any future actions the regulatory agency will take as an integral
part of remedy implementation ( e.g., post-closure permitting,
closure plan approval ).
DECLARATIONS
This section should state that the regulatory agency has determined that
the corrective action being taken is appropriate and will be protective of
human health and the environment. The section should conclude with the
signature of the RA, or other person deemed appropriate by the regulatory
agency, and the date the document was signed.
- 4-4 -
4.4.2 SELECTED REMEDY
This section of the RTC should identify and summarize the major
treatment components of the selected remedy, as well as any engineering
controls or institutional controls that will be part of the remedy. This
section should also describe how the selected remedy will provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment. The evaluation criteria
used to select and justify the remedy should be discussed in this section.
4.4.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
The communication activities undertaken by the regulatory agency during
the public comment period should be identified in this section. This
section should also identify when the public comment period was in effect,
and where/when public meetings or gatherings were held.
4.4.4 COMMENTS RAISED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD AND THE AGENCY'S RESPONSE
Comments received, followed by the regulatory agency's response, should
be listed in this section. Where necessary, comments and the regulatory
agency's response can be categorized by major issue and topic addressed.
The level of concern over each major issue and the extent that this issue
was raised should also be included in this section.
Information furnished by the public or other regulatory agencies may
provide the basis for making a significant change to the proposed remedy.
Changes to the proposed remedy resulting from the comments received or the
receipt of new information should be fully documented. It is important that
the regulatory agency respond to all significant comments. This section
should also reference any new supporting information placed into the
administrative record in response to comments. In addition, any remedial
alternatives provided by the public which were not evaluated in the CMS
should be discussed to the extent that information is available. If the
changes made are major, the regulatory agency should consider the need for
additional notice and opportunity to comment. Additional comment
opportunities are particularly appropriate if information obtained after the
SB was prepared is relied upon to change or select another remedy.
4.4.5 FUTURE ACTIONS
This section of the RTC should briefly discuss any future action the
regulatory agency will take as an integral part of remedy implementation
( post-closure permitting, closure plan approval ). The opportunity for
public participation for future actions should be made available.
4.4.6 DECLARATIONS
This section should provide the final declaration that the selected
remedy is protective of human health and the environment. This section also
provides the space for the RA or other person deemed appropriate by the
regulatory agency, to concur with the selected remedy. Generally, the
person
- 4-5 -
that signs the document implementing the corrective action ( e.g., permit
modification or enforcement order ) should sign the RTC.
- 4-6 -
CHAPTER 5
DOCUMENTING LIMITED SCOPE REMEDIAL ACTIONS
AND CONTINGENCY REMEDY DECISIONS
This chapter presents guidance on preparing the SB for unique types of
corrective action:
o Limited scope remedial actions
o Contingency remedies.
This chapter defines these decisions and outlines the modifications that
should be made to the standard SB format described in Chapter 2 when
documenting limited scope remedial actions or contingency remedies.
5.1 DOCUMENTING A "LIMITED SCOPE REMEDIAL ACTION" DECISION
The regulatory agency may determine that limited scope remedial action
is appropriate at a facility due to limited available technologies, site
conditions, or the nature of the contamination at the site. For example, it
is possible that the process of remediating a wetland would result in
greater environmental harm than if the contamination were left in place.
Another possible example is the situation where the removal of the
contamination, such as white phosphorus submerged in an estuary, would be
technologically infeasible, due to the risks to the workers, the community,
and the environment that would result from the use of current technology.
When a "limited scope remedial action" is implemented, some assurance
that exposure pathways are restricted is needed. Any "limited scope
remedial action" should be accompanied by assurance that the public is
restricted from being exposed to the hazardous situation. The SB should
discuss all actions that will be taken to protect the public from exposure.
For example, the SB may propose that bottled water will be supplied to the
public and the public drinking water wells be restricted from use.
5.2 DECISION DOCUMENTS WITH CONTINGENCY REMEDIES
In general, the regulatory agency identifies the proposed remedy in the
SB and the draft permit modification ( where applicable ) and selects the
remedy to be implemented in the final permit modification or order and
accompanying RTC.
There are limited situations, however, in which additional flexibility
- 5-1 -
may be required to ensure implementation of the most appropriate remedy at a
facility. In such situations, the regulatory agency may determine that a
permit modification or order with a selected remedy accompanied by a
contingency remedy is appropriate.
This option serves two purposes. The first is to promote the use of
innovative technologies. An innovative treatment technology may appear to
be the most appropriate remedy for a facility during the CMS but more
testing is needed during design to verify the technology's expected
performance potential. If there are uncertainties about an innovative
treatment technology, then the regulatory agency may elect to include a
proven technology as a contingency remedy in the SB and draft permit
modification ( where applicable ). The second situation that may be
appropriate for contingency remedies is where two different technologies
under consideration appear to offer comparable performance on the basis of
the decision factors, such that both could be argued to provide the "best
balance of tradeoffs." Under such circumstances, the SB may identify one as
the proposed remedy and the other as a contingency remedy and specify the
criteria whereby the contingency remedy would be implemented.
- 5-2 -
CHAPTER 6
EXAMPLE STATEMENT OF BASIS
6.1 EXAMPLE STATEMENT OF BASIS
The following is an example of a SB which follows the standard format
presented in Chapter 2. The model facility is imaginary and any similarity
with an actual facility is purely coincidental.
EIO INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
Nameless, Tennessee
INTRODUCTION
This SB for the EIO Industrial Company explains the proposed remedy for
cleaning up the contaminated soils and explains the reasons for this
proposal identified in the draft permit modification or proposed corrective
action order, if applicable. In addition, the SB includes summaries of
other remedies analyzed for this facility. EPA will select a final remedy
for the facility only after the public comment period has ended and the
information submitted during this time has been reviewed and considered.
EPA is issuing this SB as part of its public participation
responsibilities under RCRA.
This document summarizes information that can be found in greater detail
in the RFI and CMS reports and other documents contained in the
administrative record for this facility. EPA and the State encourage the
public to review these other documents in order to gain a more comprehensive
understanding of the facility and RCRA activities that have been conducted
there.
EPA may modify the proposed remedy or select another remedy based on new
information or public comments. Therefore, the public is encouraged to
review and comment on all alternatives. The public can be involved in the
remedy selection process by reviewing the documents contained in the
administrative record file and attending the public meeting scheduled for
June 22, 1990.
PROPOSED REMEDY
The U.S. EPA ( or state agency ) is proposing the following remedy to
address the contaminated media at the EIO facility:
- Excavate 7,500 yd(3) of contaminated soils
- Employ a low temperature volatilization step to capture the highly
mobile Volatile Organic Constituents ( VOCs )
- 6-1 -
- Stabilize soils
- Dispose of treated soil onsite in a capped unit.
A more detailed discussion of the proposed remedy is included below.
FACILITY BACKGROUND
In 1947, the EIO Industrial Company began disposing of septic waste at
its plant located at 129 Franklin Street in Nameless, Tennessee ( see Figure
6-1 ). In the late 1960s, the company also began to accept shipments of
hazardous waste. Wastes were stored in 13 storage tanks in the 5-acre tank
farm area. The wastes subsequently were pumped to seven unlined lagoons.
The site ceased operation in August 1987, and is currently in the closure
process.
During facility operations, soils at the tank farm area were
contaminated by wastes spilled during pumping and from leaking tanks.
Although the lagoons were emptied and backfilled with clean soil by the EIO
Industrial Company in 1981, the subsurface soils in the 5-acre lagoon area
were contaminated. In addition, both the municipal well, located a mile
from the facility, and several residential wells, located within a half
mile, have been contaminated by wastes from the facility.
Between 1986 and 1988, the EIO Industrial Company conducted and RFI and
a CMS pursuant to permit conditions / enforcement order. They were
conducted to identify the types, quantities, and locations of contaminants
and to develop ways of addressing the contamination problems. The results
of these studies are as follows:
o Onsite surface soils in the former lagoon and tank farm area are
contaminated with varying levels of lead, chromium, and cadmium
o Onsite subsurface soils in the former lagoon and tank farm area are
contaminated with trichloroethylene ( TCE ), other chlorinated
aliphatic and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and lead
o A nearby municipal well is contaminated
o A plume of contaminated ground water extends from the site to the
XYZ River.
SUMMARY OF FACILITY RISKS
During the RFI, an analysis was conducted to estimate the health or
environmental problems that could result if the soil contamination at the
EIO facility was not cleaned up. This analysis is commonly referred to as a
- 6-2 -
baseline risk assessment. In conducting this assessment, the focus was on
direct ingestion of the soil by a child playing in the area. The analysis
focused on the major contaminant of concern, TCE. TCE is a volatile organic
compound that is known to cause cancer in laboratory animals and thus is
classified as a carcinogen. TCE is a highly mobile contaminant that
typically migrates through the soil into the ground water.
Sampling of the soil at the facility found that the average
concentration of TCE in the soils was 140 parts per million. This
concentration level is associated with an excess lifetime cancer risk of
10(-3). This means that if no cleanup action is taken by EPA, one
additional person per one thousand has a chance of contracting cancer as a
result of the exposure to TCE-contaminated soil. This estimate was
developed by taking into account various conservative assumptions about the
length and quantity of exposure endured by a person and the toxicity of TCE.
EPA and the State have determined that in cleaning up the contaminated
soil at the EIO facility to a concentration of 13 ppm of TCE, the excess
lifetime cancer risk posed by the facility following remediation will be
reduced to 10(-6). This cleanup target would reduce the probability of
contracting cancer as a result of exposure to the contaminants in the soil
to one additional person in one million. Because there are no Federal or
State cleanup standards for contamination in soil, this cleanup target was
established for this site as part of the risk assessment conducted during
the RFI. The cleanup target was established to reduce direct contact
exposure to an acceptable level, as well as to ensure that the migration of
the TCE into the ground water is minimized.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous constituents from this
facility, if not addressed by the proposed remedy or one of the other
remedies considered, may present a current or potential threat to human
health and the environment.
SCOPE OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
The problems at the EIO facility are complex. As a result, EPA has
divided the work into three manageable phases. These are as follows:
o Phase One: Remediation of Contamination in the municipal well.
o Phase Two: Remediation of Contamination of the ground water
aquifer.
o Phase Three: Remediation of Contamination in the soils.
EPA has already selected remedies for Phases One and Two ( the municipal
well and the contaminated ground water ) as noticed in the July, 1989
( permit
- 6-4 -
modification / order ) and accompanying RTC. The contaminated ground water
is a principal threat at this site because of the potential for direct
ingestion of contaminants through drinking water wells. Both of the
actions for Phases Ones and Two are in the CMI stage, which means that the
engineers are developing specific plans for implementation of the remedy.
Actual construction is planned for March 1991.
The third phase addresses the contaminated soils in the lagoon and tank
farm area. This contiguous area was determined to be a principal threat at
the site because of the potential threat of direct contact with the soils
and the soil's impact on ground water. The cleanup objectives for this
phase are to prevent current or future exposure to the contaminated soils
through treatment and/or containment, and to reduce the migration of
contaminants from the soil to ground water.
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives analyzed for Phase Three are presented below. These
are numbered to correspond with the numbers in the CMS Report. The
alternatives for the soil cleanup are the following:
o Alternative 1: No action.
o Alternative 2: Capping.
o Alternative 3: Excavation, Treatment of Volatile Organic Compounds
in a Vaporization Loop, Lime Stabilization of
Soils, Capping, and Disposal Onsite.
o Alternative 4: Excavation and Offsite Thermal Destruction.
o Alternative 5: Excavation, Onsite Thermal Destruction, and
Solidification.
EIO has calculated the following costs associated with each alternative
and the time needed for implementation: 1/
1/ These numbers are purely hypothetical and do not represent Agency
determinations of remedial cost.
Capital Annual Operational & Present Months to
Alternative Cost($) Maintenance Costs($) Worth($) Complete
1 0 0 0 0
2 740,485 18,120 910,260 5
3 4,666,000 41,000 5,050,150 12-15
4 39,056,421 26,200 39,301,905 36-72
5 42,163,300 26,200 42,708,780 30
- 6-5 -
Alternative 1:
NO ACTION
The "no action" alternative is often evaluated to establish a baseline
for comparison. Under this alternative, EPA would take no further action at
the site to prevent exposure to the soil contamination.
Alternative 2:
CAPPING
The contaminated soil would be left in place and a 24-inch compacted cap
would be installed over the entire 10 acres of contaminated surface soils in
the tank farm and lagoon areas. The cap would be designed to meet the RCRA
landfill closure standards in 40 CFR 264.310, which, among other things,
specify that the permeability of the cap must be less than or equal to the
permeability of the natural underlying soils at the facility.
Alternative 3:
EXCAVATION, VOLATILIZATION, STABILIZATION, AND DISPOSAL ONSITE
The 7,500 yd(3) of VOC-contaminated soils from the tank farm and lagoon
area would be excavated. To remove the highly mobile VOCs, a low
temperature volatilization step would be inserted into the cleanup process
between excavation and landfilling. Granular activated carbon ( GAC )
canisters would separate the volatile contaminants from the soils leaving
only the less mobile organic and metal compounds in the soil to be
landfilled onsite. All contaminants subject to the Land Disposal
Restrictions will be treated to the treatment standards specified in 40 CFR
268. Approximately 99 percent of the VOCs would be removed by this
treatment process. The used carbon canisters would be shipped offsite to be
regenerated.
The treated soils would then be returned to the lagoon and tank farm
area and stabilized with the 3,500 yd(3) of metal-contaminated soils not
previously excavated. The lagoon and tank farm area would be regraded and
revegetated and capped in accordance with the standards for RCRA landfill
closure in 40 CFR 264.310.
Alternative 4:
EXCAVATION AND OFFSITE THERMAL DESTRUCTION
All 11,000 yd(3) of contaminated soils would be excavated, transported,
and destroyed in an offsite thermal destruction unit. This thermal
destruction process would address the VOCs in the soil; however, metals
would remain in the ash and would require proper disposal. The excavation
process would leave the site "clean," requiring no long-term management
controls. The offsite thermal destruction unit would comply with technical
standards for
- 6-6 -
incinerators, which include stack scrubbers and other recovery mechanisms to
ensure that no untreated hazardous substances are released into the
environment. The incinerator would destroy 99.99 percent of the VOCs in the
contaminated soils. The resulting ash would be properly handled and
disposed of by the operators of the thermal destruction unit.
Alternative 5:
EXCAVATION, ONSITE THERMAL DESTRUCTION, AND SOLIDIFICATION
A mobile, thermal destruction unit would be brought to the site, and
11,000 yd(3) of contaminated soils would be excavated and destroyed onsite.
This thermal destruction process would address the VOCs, but the metals in
the soils would remain in the ash. The onsite thermal destruction unit
would comply with technical standards for incinerators. Off-gases and
scrubber wastes from the thermal destruction unit would be collected and
properly disposed. This incinerator would destroy 99.99 percent of the VOCs
in the soil. Residual metals and ash would be solidified and disposed of
offsite in a RCRA Subtitle C facility.
EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED REMEDY AND ALTERNATIVES
The proposed remedy for cleaning up the soils ( the source control
phase ) at the EIO facility is Alternative 3 -- Excavation, Volatilization,
Stabilization, and Onsite Disposal in a capped unit. This section profiles
the performance of the proposed remedy against the four general standards
and the five remedy decision factors, noting how it compares to the other
options under consideration.
1. Overall Protection. All of the alternatives, with the exception of the
"no action" alternative, would provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls. The
proposed remedy would treat the volatile organic contaminants in the
soils, stabilize the remaining wastes, and cap the remaining residuals
to reduce the risks associated with direct contact and minimize the
migration of contamination from the ground water.
Because the "no action" alternative is not protective of human health
and the environment, it is not considered further in this analysis as an
option for this facility.
2. Attainment of Media Cleanup Standards. All alternatives would meet
their respective media cleanup standards of Federal and State
environmental laws. Because the proposed remedy would involve the
excavation and placement of hazardous waste, compliance with all
applicable land disposal restrictions ( LDR ) standards must be ensured.
3. Controlling the Sources of Releases. All of the alternatives would be
effective in reducing, to the maximum extent practicable, further
- 6-7 -
releases of contaminants to the ground water, surface water, air, and
other soils. The proposed remedy would remove the VOC contamination in
the soils through volatilization and control the release of metals by
stabilization.
4. Compliance with Waste Management Standards. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5,
which involve soil excavation and either treatment or offsite disposal,
would comply with the applicable requirements for the management of
solid waste. This would assure that the management of wastes is
conducted in a protective manner.
5. Long-term Reliability and Effectiveness. The proposed remedy would
reduce the inherent hazards posed by the volatile organic compounds in
the contaminated soils. The treated soils would still be contaminated
with other organic and metal compounds; however, the long-term risks of
exposure to the remaining contaminants in the soils would be reduced by
stabilizing and sealing the soils in the capped area, which would
prevent migration of the contaminants to ground water, surface water,
air, and other soils. A ground water monitoring system would be
installed around the lagoon and tank farm area to assess the
effectiveness of the treatment and disposal in the closed area.
Alternatives 4 and 5 would permanently destroy most of the organic soil
contamination ( TCE, Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons ( PAHs ) ). The
ash generated by the thermal destruction units, however, would be
contaminated by those metal compounds not destroyed by this process.
Under Alternative 4, the ash would be disposed of in an offsite landfill
to protect against risks of future human contact. Under Alternative 5,
the contaminated ash would be solidified to prevent the possibility of
human contact. The solidified waste would be disposed of offsite in a
RCRA Subtitle C landfill.
Alternative 5 would remove all waste to a permitted, offsite landfill,
thereby eliminating the long-term risks of exposure at the EIO facility.
The cap that would be implemented in Alternative 2 would provide
long-term reductions in the amount of water that otherwise would pass
through the contaminated soils. This would reduce the generation of
contaminated leachate that could migrate to the ground water. Because
the highly mobile VOCs will not be treated, the contaminated soils that
constitute a principal threat would remain at the facility and would
pose potential long-term risks of exposure. The cap's effectiveness
would be evaluated through long-term monitoring. The cap would require
long-term maintenance, and portions of it might need to be replaced in
the future.
6. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Wastes. Only three of the
alternatives would treat the wastes to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
- 6-8 -
volume of the organics. Alternative 3 would involve treatment of the
most mobile contaminants, the volatile organic compounds. The treated
soils would still be contaminated with less mobile organic and metal
compounds. These soils would be stabilized with the metal-contaminated
soils in the lagoon and tank farm area and the area would then be
capped.
Alternatives 4 and 5 both would involve incineration processes that
would permanently destroy the organic contaminants. The contaminated
ash would be disposed of the a RCRA landfill. Alternative 2 achieves no
reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume.
7. Short-term Effectiveness. Alternative 3 would contain the treated soils
and reduce the possibility of direct human contact with contaminants
more quickly than all the other alternatives, except Alternative 2
( i.e., capping ). Under the proposed remedy, once the volatile organic
compounds have been collected in canisters, there is some minor,
short-term risk of exposure to the community during transportation of
the canisters to a treatment facility. All of the alternatives that
include excavation would pose some short-term risks of exposure to VOCs
during the excavation process.
Because the capacity of onsite and offsite thermal destruction units is
limited under Alternatives 4 and 5, contaminated soils would be
stockpiled for up to 6 years. Under these two alternatives, the risks
of direct contact with stockpiled, contaminated soils would be increased
until incineration has been completed because of dust. In addition,
there are some risks of exposure to air emissions from the incinerators
and the piles.
8. Implementability. Alternative 2 has few associated administrative
difficulties that could delay implementation. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5
must recognize and comply with LDRs. The long-term monitoring that
would be required to establish the continued viability of the proposed
remedy would be less extensive than would be necessary for Alternative
2. The activated carbon canisters that are part of the vaporization
step used in the proposed remedy are available in the area. In
contrast, there is uncertainty about the availability of adequate
capacity at an offsite incinerator. This could lead to delays of up to
6 years in implementing Alternative 4. Because there is only one mobile
incinerator that could be used at the site, the implementation of
Alternative 5 may take over 2 years to complete.
9. Cost. The present worth cost of the proposed remedy is $5,050,150. The
lowest cost alternative is Alternative 2 at $910,260. The highest cost
alternative is Alternative 5 at $42,708,780. Alternative 4 has a cost
of $39,301,905.
- 6-9 -
In summary, Alternative 3 would achieve substantial risk reduction
through treatment of the principal threat remaining at the facility ( i.e.,
the mobile lagoon waste ) and by providing for the safe management of other
material that will remain at the facility. Alternative 3 achieves this risk
reduction more quickly than any of the other treatment options. Based on
information currently available, the proposed remedy provides the best
balance of tradeoffs among the alternatives with respect to the evaluation
criteria. EPA and the State of Tennessee believe that the proposed remedy
would be protective of human health and the environment; attain media
cleanup standards consistent with those proposed under 40 CFR 264.525(d) and
(e); control the sources of releases so as to reduce or eliminate to the
maximum extent practicable, further releases; and comply with applicable
standards for management of waste.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
EPA solicits input from the community on the cleanup methods proposed
under each of the previous alternatives. The public is also invited to
provide comment on remedial alternatives not addressed in the CMS. EPA has
set a public comment period from June 22 through August 22, 1990, to
encourage public participation in the selection process. The comment period
includes a public meeting at which EPA will present the SB ( and draft
permit modification ), answer questions, and accept both oral and written
comments.
The public meeting is scheduled for 7:30 p.m., June 22, 1990, and will
be held at the Nameless Community Hall, 123 Market Road, in Nameless,
Tennessee.
The administrative record is available at the following locations:
Nameless Public Library
125 Elm Street
Nameless, TN 00000
( 101 ) 999-1099
Hours: Mon-Sat, 9 a.m. - 9 p.m.
and
U.S. EPA Docket Room, Region IV
Federal Building, 10th Floor
Atlanta, GA
( 555 ) 555-1212
Hours: Mon-Fri, 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
- 6-10 -
Comments will be summarized and responses provided in the Response to
Comments. The Response to Comments will be drafted at the conclusion of the
public comment period and incorporated into the administrative record. To
send written comments or obtain further information, contact:
Jane Doe
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
123 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 00000
( 555 ) 555-4640. Toll-free 1 ( 800 ) 333-1515
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ( Monday - Friday )
- 6-11 -
CHAPTER 7
EXAMPLE FINAL DECISION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
7.1 EXAMPLE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The following is an example of a RTC following the standard format for
RTC that was presented in Chapter 4. As previously noted, the model
facility is an imaginary facility and is the same facility for which the
Example SB was written.
EIO INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
Nameless, Tennessee
INTRODUCTION
This RTC is being presented by the U.S. EPA. The purpose of the RTC is
to identify the selected remedy, present concerns and issues raised during
the public comment period, and provide responses. All of the comments
received were carefully reviewed during the final selection of the remedy,
and have been answered in this RTC. No additional alternatives were raised
that were not considered in the CMS and the proposed remedy was not altered
as a result of public comments.
SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy for the contaminated soil at this facility is
excavation, volatilization of organics, stabilization, and onsite disposal.
The 7,500 yd(3) of VOC-contaminated soil from the tank farm and lagoon area
will be excavated. A low temperature thermal desorption unit will be used
to remove the highly mobile VOCs. The off-gas from this unit will be passed
through GAC canisters to remove the VOCs to meet air discharge requirements.
This treated soil will then be stabilized to immobilize the less mobile
organic and metal compounds. This treatment is expected to meet applicable
land disposal restrictions. The remaining 3,500 yd(3) of metal-
contaminated soils will be excavated and also treated by stabilization. The
11,000 yd(3) of stabilized soil will be placed back into the tank farm and
lagoon area. This area will be regraded, revegetated, and capped in
accordance with the standards for RCRA landfill closure in 40 CFR 264.310.
A ground water monitoring system will be installed around the facility to
ensure the long-term effectiveness of the treatment method.
All of the proposed remedies initially screened in the CMS, with the
exception of the "no action" alternative, would provide adequate protection
of
- 7-1 -
human health and the environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling
risk through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
However, the selected remedy will achieve site remediation more quickly
( 12 to 15 months ) than any of the other proposed remedies. ( Alternative
2 -- cap installation, would take less time than the selected remedy.
However, it was not chosen because it would not provide as much long-term
reliability and effectiveness, and would not reduce the toxicity, mobility,
or volume of the waste. ) The selected remedy will be reliable and
effective over the long-term by reducing the inherent hazards posed by the
volatile organic compounds in the contaminated soils. The remaining organic
and metal contamination will be treated by stabilization thereby reducing
the mobility of the contaminants. Although Alternatives 4 ( excavation and
offsite thermal destruction ) and 5 ( excavation, onsite thermal
destruction, and solidification ) would provide comparable long-term
reliability and effectiveness, they were not selected due to the increased
risk of direct contact with stockpiled, contaminated soil. The selected
remedy provides the best balance among the alternatives with respect to the
evaluation criteria, including:
o Long-term reliability and effectiveness
o Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of waste
o Short-term effectiveness
o Implementability
o Cost.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
A public comment period was set from June 22 through August 22, 1990. A
public meeting was held on June 22, 1990 at the Nameless Community Hall, 123
Market Road, in Nameless, Tennessee. The meeting was attended by a total of
23 people, including representatives of EPA, the Tennessee Pollution Control
Board, the local government, and citizens. A number of comments were raised
and are presented below.
COMMENTS RAISED AND THE AGENCY'S RESPONSE
Concern:
Citizens were concerned as to when the cleanup activities would begin.
Response:
The EIO Industrial Company is a complex site with both soil and ground
water contamination. Therefore, EPA has divided the corrective action into
three phases. The three phases are for correcting contamination in the
municipal well, the ground water aquifer, and the soils. EPA has already
selected remedies for Phases One and Two ( the municipal well and the
contaminated ground water ). A RTC for Phases One and Two was completed in
- 7-2 -
July, 1989. Construction for these two phases is planned for March 1991.
CMI for Phase Three ( soil contamination ) is expected to begin in September
1991.
Concern:
Representatives of the local government reported that they found
contamination in another of their municipal wells ( well #9 ) located
approximately 5 miles downgradient of the facility. They stated that the
contamination was similar to that found at the EIO Industrial Company. They
requested that the facility provide financial assistance to the local
government for remediation for well #9.
Response:
The administrative record contains no evidence of any spill or
industrial activity near well #9 that would link the EIO Industrial Company
with the chemicals contaminating well #9. Also, according to the RFI
report, the contaminated ground water plume only extends 1 mile downgradient
of the facility ( refer to Figure 7-1 ). However, EPA will initiate an
investigation of this new area of contamination.
Concern:
Citizens voiced concerns regarding the possibility that excavation of
the contaminated soil during the CMI process will create dust emissions that
may endanger the community.
Response:
An EPA representative reported that the dust emissions created are not
expected to be carried by wind as far as the local community, 1 mile from
the excavation area. Continuous air monitors will be set up to ensure that
dust levels are maintained at acceptable levels during excavation. If dust
emissions exceed acceptable levels the work will be stopped until those
conditions abate. It was also noted that the risk of dust emissions was
associated with four of the six alternatives suggested in the CMS due to
soil excavation.
Concern:
The panel was asked to explain the stabilization process.
Response:
Following soil excavation and treatment by volatilization of organics,
the contaminated soil will be stabilized. The soil will be mixed with the
stabilization compounds ( examples are cement, lime, and flyash ), and
placed
- 7-3 -
into monolith sections in the lagoon and tank farm areas. A treatability
study will be performed prior to onsite stabilization to determine the
optimum stabilization mixture for the EIO Industrial Company soil. The
technology will not result in the destruction of the contaminants, however,
it will result in permanent reduction of mobility or toxicity of the
contaminants. The volume of the soils will be increased as a result of
stabilization. The optimum stabilization mixture will provide a reduction
in mobility of the contaminants in excess of 95 percent.
Concern:
Citizens raised concerns regarding the cancer risk associated with
leaving the treated waste onsite following volatilization and stabilization.
Response:
The selected remedy must meet applicable environmental standards, to be
protective of human health and the environment, and be reliable and
implementable. The selected remedy was chosen by evaluating these criteria.
It was determined during the evaluation process that the significantly
higher cost associated with offsite disposal of the soil would not provide a
proportionally greater benefit in terms of being protective of human health
and the environment. The estimates of increased lifetime cancer risks made
during the CMS were performed using conservative models and based on a worst
case scenario. The selected remedy is expected to meet standards and to be
protective of human health and the environment.
The public has not requested that a remedy other than the proposed
remedy be implemented at the EIO facility. No modifications or changes to
the selected remedy were made as a result of the public comments.
FUTURE ACTIONS
To determine whether specific community concerns arise during the CMI
process, information will be provided to the public through press releases
or other appropriate means, such as additional public meetings.
DECLARATIONS
Based on the administrative record compiled for this corrective action,
I have determined that the selected remedy to be ordered at this site ( or
in the permit modification for this site ) is appropriate and will be
protective of human health and the environment.
__________________________________ EPA Regional Administrator
__________________________________ Date
- 7-5 -
CHAPTER 8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
"Carcinogenic Risk Assessment," 51 Federal Register ( FR ) 33932, September
24, 1986.
"CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual," OSWER Directive 9234.1-01,
August 1988.
"Chemical, Physical and Biological Properties of Compounds Present at
Hazardous Waste Sites," EPA / OWPE, September 1985.
"Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook," OSWER Directive 9230.0-3B,
June 1988.
"Construction Quality Assurance for Hazardous Waste Land Disposal
Facilities," EPA / 530-SW-85-031, July 1986.
"Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities; Proposed Rule," 55 FR 30798, July 27, 1990.
"Exposure Assessment," 51 FR 34042, September 1986.
"Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
Under CERCLA," OSWER Directive 5355.3-01, October 1988.
"Guidance on Administrative Records for RCRA 3008(h) Actions," OSWER
Directive 9940.4, July 1989.
"Guidance on Public Involvement in the RCRA Permitting Program," OSWER
Directive 9500.00-1A, January 1986.
"Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund
Sites," OSWER Directive 9283.1-2, December 1988.
"Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures,"
51 FR 34014.
"The Health Assessment of Suspect Developmental Toxicants," 51 FR 34028,
September 1986.
"The Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures," 51 FR 34014, September
24, 1986.
- 8-1 -
"Interim Final Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents," OSWER
Directive 9355.3-02, June 1989.
"Interim Final RCRA Facility Investigation ( RFI ) Guidance," OSWER
Directive 9502.00-6D, EPA 530 / SW-89-031, May 1989.
"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Waste," EPA-600 / 4-79-020,
March 1979.
"Mutagenicity Risk Assessment," 51 FR 34006, September 24, 1986.
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Proposed
Rule," FR, December 21, 1988.
"RCRA Corrective Action Plan - Interim Final," OSWER Directive 9902.3, EPA /
530-SW-88-028, June 1988.
"RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document,
Final," EPA / OWPE, September 1986.
"Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites ( Revised )," EPA / 625 / 6-85 /
006, 1985.
"Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund," Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation
Manual ( Part A ), Interim Final ( EPA, December 1989 - EPA / 540 / 1-89 /
002 ).
"Superfund Federal - Lead Remedial Project Management Handbook," OSWER
Directive 9355.1-1, December 1986.
Superfund Program; Part 1. Public Health Risk Assessment and Part 2.
Ecological Risk Assessment ( EPA 901 / 5 / 89-001, June 1989 ).
"Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance," OSWER Directive
9355.0-4A, June 1986.
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical / Chemical Methods,"
Third Edition, November 1986.
"Toxicology Handbook - Principles Related to Hazardous Waste Site
Investigations," EPA / OWPE, August 1985.
- 8-2 -
OMITTED TEXT: Figure 1-1 - RCRA Corrective Action Process, page 1-3; Figure
1-2 - Evaluation Criteria for Corrective Measures, page 1-7; Figure 2-1 -
The Corrective Action Decision Making Process, page 2-2; Figure 6-1 - EIO
Industrial Company Facility and Surroundings, page 6-3; Figure 7-1 - EIO
Industrial Company Facility and Surroundings Showing Contaminated Ground
Water Plume, page 7-4.
Return to Enforcement Policies