Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0004-0043
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-02-12T05:00Z

Y
INGTON,
D.
C.
20460
JUbJ
­
4
2001
CT:
Reuse
Assessments:
A
Tool
Larry
Reed,
Acting
Director
Office
of
Emergency
and
Superfbnd
National
Policy
Managers
Regions
1
­
10
SE
OFFICE
OF
SOLID
WASTE
AND
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
OSWER
9355.7­
06P
d
Land
Use
Directive
This
directive
presents
idomation
for
developing
futrare
land
use
assumptions
when
making
remedy
selection
decisions
for
Superfund
sites
under
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(
CERCLA).
The
purpose
of
this
directive
is
to:

1.
Reaffirm
the
directive
 
Land
Use
in
the
CERCLA
Remedy
Selection
Process, 
BSWER
Directive
No.
9355.7­
04,
May
1995
(
the
Superfund
Land
Use
Directive)
in
Superfund
response
actions,
and
highlight
its
importance
in
achieving
the
goals
of
the
Superknd
Redevelopment
Initiative
(
SRT);

2.
Extend
the
applicability
of
the
Superfimd
Land
Use
Directive
to
non­
time­
critical
removal
actions ,
where
appropriate;
and
3.
Introduce
the
 
Reuse
Assessment 
as
a
tool
to
help
implement
the
Superfund
Land
Use
Directive
(
see
Attachment
1).

AC
Om
July
23,
f
999,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
announced
the
Superfund
Redevelopment
Initiative
(
SRI)
to
help
communities
return
Superfiand
sites
to
productive
use.
The
SRJ
launched
a
coordinated
national
effort
to
develop
policies,
procedures
and
practices
needed
to
achieve
this
goal.
The
SMalso
reemphasizes
EFA s
current
practice
of
considering
~
jc~
~~~~
 
~
~
of
this~
directive
has
not
been
extended
to~
non­
time­
critical
removal
actions
for
Brownfields
revolving
foan
fund
pilot
projects.
Regions
and
Brownfields
PiIot
recipients
should
continue
to
refer
to
the
relevant
rownfields
program
guidance.

htemet
Address
(
URL)
Q
http:
llwww.
epa.
gov
Recycl9Mec ~
clable0
Printed
w%
h
Vegetable
Oil
Based
Inks
on
Recycled
Paper
(
Minimum
25%
POStCOnSUmer)
I
OSWR
9355.7­
04P
future
land
use
assumptions
in
cleanup
decisions
and
encouragescommunities
to
communicate
their
future
land
use
preferences
before
the
Agency
Mly
implements
a
cleanup
remedy.
In
implementingthe
SRI,
the
Agency
is
clear
in
assuring
that
site
reuse,
where
it
can
be
achieved,
occurs
without
compromising
cleanup
standards
or
the
protectiveness
of
response
actions.

TA
2
The
Superfund
Land
Use
Directive(
see
Attachment
2)
provides
basic
information
on
developing
and
using
future
land
use
assumptions
to
support
Superfund
remedial
actions.
The
SuperfundLand
Use
Directive
promotes
early
discussionswith
stakeholders
regarding
potential
future
land
use
options
for
sites
and
promotes
the
use
of
that
information
to
develop
realistic
assumptions
regarding
future
land
use.
The
followingtopics
are
addressed
in
the
Directive:

%
Why
realistic
assumptionsof
future
land
use
are
important
to
the
Superfund
response
process;

6
Types
of
information
that
cm
be
considered;
e
How
to
use
assumptions
of
future
land
use
in
the
development,
selection
and
implementation
of
response
actions;

B
Public
involvement
considerations;

%
The
role
of
institutional
controls
when
response
actions
result
in
restricted
fbture
uses;
and
e
The
applicability
of
hture
land
use
considerations
to
Federal
Facility
sites
undergoing
response
actions,
as
well
as
RCM
Corrective
Action
sites.

Integrating
realistic
assumptionsof
future
land
use
into
Superfund
response
actions
is
an
important
step
toward
facilitatingthe
reuse
of
sites
following
cleanup.
Therefore,
implementation
of
the
Superfund
Land
Use
Directivecan
be
an
important
factor
in
achievingthe
sites
to
objectivesof
the
S
wherever
cleanup
actions
G
be
catalysts
for
returning
~
upe~~
d
productive
use.
Regions
should
review
the
Superfund
Land
Use
Directive
and
ensure
that
reasonable
future
land
use
assmptions
are
incorporated
into
the
development,
evaluation
and
selection
of
response
actions,
where
appropriate.

'
App~~
cab~
li~
to
Federal
Facilities
and
RCW
Corrective
Action.
Where
another
federal
agency
is
performing
a
CEWCLA­
based
remedial
action
or
non­
time­
critical
removal,
it
should
develop
assumptions
of
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use
as
part
ofthe
response
process
consistent
with
the
Superfund
Land
Use
Directive,
where
a~~~~
pr~~
t~.
Information
in
this
directive
may
be
helpful
to
Federal
Faci!
ity
site
managers
conducting
this
work.
In
particular,
the
Reuse
Assessment
Guide
conveys
a
concise
hand
practical
approach
to
addressing
future
land
use
issues.
Also,
information
In
this
directive
may
be
helpful
to
RG
project
managers
in
developing
future
farad
use
assumptions.
However,
RCM
stakeholders
should
a
refer
to
guidance
on
land
use
in
the
May
1,1996,
Notice
of
Proposed
UkrnEkiEg
(
Vd.
61
,
NO.
$
5,
40
GFW,
Pi3,
geS
19432
to
19464).
f
QSWR
9355.7­
06P
This
directiveextends
the
applicability
of
the
SuperfimdLand
Use
Directive
to
non­
timecritical
removal
actions,
where
site
conditions
and
the
nature
of
the
response
action
warrant.
Assumptions
regarding
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use
can
be
considered
when
developingthe
Engineering
EvaluatioidCostAnalysis
(
EEICA).
Future
land
use
assumptions
can
.
support
site
characterization,
risk
assessment,
and
the
development,
evaluation
and
selection
of
response
actions.
The
analysis
supporting
the
assumptionsof
future
land
use
can
be
scaled
back,
as
appropriate,
consistent
with
the
scope
of
the
removal
action.

~
§
§
~
~~~~
Q~~.

The
reuse
assessment,
as
described
in
Attachment
1,
involves
collecting
and
evaluating
information
to
develop
assumptionsabout
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use(
s)
at
Superfund
sites.
It
provides
a
tool
to
implement
the
Superfhd
Land
Use
Directive
and
may
involve
a
review
of
available
records,
visual
inspectionsofthe
site
and
discussions
about
potential
future
land
uses
with
local
government
officials,
property
owners
and
community
members.
Information
gathered
as
part
of
the
reuse
assessment
can
be
combined
With
other
information
on
potential
future
land
use
obtainedthrough
the
CERCLA
community
involvement
process
and
through
dialogue
with
state
officials.

Information
obtained
from
the
reuse
assessment
can
be
particularly
useful
during
the
planning
stages
of
a
response
action.
The
resulting
assumptions
of
reasonably
anticipated
hture
use
can
be
considered
as
part
of
the
following:

.
a
The
baseline
risk
assessment
when
estimating
potential
future
risks;
e3
The
development
of
remediaYremova1action
objectives
and
the
development
and
evaluationof
response
alternatives;
and
*
The
selection
of
the
appropriate
response
action
required
for
the
protection
sf
human
health
and
the
environment.

Similarly,
a
reuse
assessment
can
be
useful
for
developing
future
land
use
assumptionsas
part
of
the
EEKA
and
action
memorandum
supporting
a
noxa­
time­
critical
removal
action.

Copies
of
this
document
are
available
on
the
Superfundweb
site,
at
h~://~.
ersa,
nov/
su~
e~~~~
bs.~~.
Copies
of
this
document
may
also
be
obtained
from
the
OEM
Document
Center
(
703)
603­
9232.
General
questions
about
this
topic
should
be
referred
to
the
Hotline
at
I
­
8OO­
424­
5~
46.
The
subject
matter
specialist
for
this
document
is
Paul
Nadeau
of
OE
­
3­
R
9355.7­
06P
Notice:
This
document
is
intended
to
provide
guidance
and
information
for
EPA
staff,
states,
tribes,
Potentially
Responsible
Parties
(
PWs)
and
contractors
conducting
site
cleanups
under
CERCLA,
as
well
as
for
local
governments
and
other
stakeholders
involved
with
Superfund
sites
and
the
CERCLA
response
process.
The
approach
in
this
guidance
is
meant
to
be
considered
at
current
and
future
sites
undergoing
m
/
FS
or
EE/
CA,
to
the
extent
possible.
Any
decisions
regarding
a
particular
remedy
selection
decision
will
be
made
based
on
the
statute
and
regulations,
and
EPA
decision
makers
retain
the
discretion
to
adopt
approaches
that
differ
from
this
guidance,
where
appropriate,
on
a
case
by
case
basis.
Consistent
withthe
Superfund
Land
Use
Directive,
this
guidance
is
not
intended
to
suggest
that
previous
remedy
selection
decisions
should
be
reopened.
EPA
may
change
this
guidance
in
the
future.

Attachment
1
­
Reuse
Assessment
Guide
Attachment
2
­
Land
Use
in
the
CERCLA
Remedy
Selection
Process
cc:
Jeff
Josephson,
Supehd
Lead
Region
Coordinator,
USEPA
Region
2
NAWM
Co­
Chairs
QERRRecords
Manager9IMC
52026
QERR
Documents
coordinator,
HOSC
5202G
QERR
Regional
Center
Directors
Paul
Nadeau,
QERR
5204G
John
Harris,
OERR
52046
Steve
Caldwell,
ST/
SIC
52046
Suzanne
Wells,
CIOC
5204G
Elizabeth
Cotsworth,
8SW
5301W
Linda
Gacqnski,
OSPS
5101
­
4­
OSWER
9355.7­
06P
The
reuse
assessment
involves
collecting
and
evaluating
information
to
develop
assumptions
about
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use(
s)
at
Supehd
sites.
It
provides
a
tool
to
implement
the
Superhnd
Land
Use
Directive,
and
may
involve
a
review
of
available
records,
visual
inspections
of
the
site
and
discussions
about
reasonably
anticipated
future
uses
with
local
government
officials,
property
owners
and
community
members.

Information
obtained
from
the
reuse
assessment
can
be
particularly
useful
during
the
planning
stages
of
a
response
action.
The
resulting
assumptions
of
reasonably
anticipated
future
use
can
be
considered
as
part
of
the
following:

a
The
baseline
risk
assessment
when
estimating
potential
hture
risks;
e
The
development
of
remediaVremovd
action
objectives
and
the
development
and
evaluation
of
response
alternatives;
and
e
The
selection
of
the
appropriate
response
action
required
for
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Similarly,
a
reuse
assessment
can
be
useful
for
developing
future
land
use
assumptions
as
part
of
the
EEKA
and
action
memorandum
supporting
a
non­
time­
critical
removal
action.

A
reuse
assessment
assists
in
developing
assumptions
regarding
the
@
pesor
broad
categories
of
reuse
that
might
reasonably
occur
at
a
Superfund
site.
Examples
of
land
use
assumptions
that
appear
likely
based
on
the
conclusions
of
a
reuse
assessment
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
residential,
comerciaVindustal,
recreational
and
ecological.
More
specific
end
uses
(
e.
g.,
office
complex,
shopping
center,
or
soccer
facility)
can
be
considered
during
the
response
process
when
detailed
planning
information
is
readily
available.

The
scope
and
level
of
detail
of
the
reuse
assessment
should
be
site­
specific
and
tailored
to
the
complexity
of
the
site,
the
extent
of
the
contamination,
the
level
of
redevelopment
activity
that
has
already
occurred
at
the
site
and
the
density
of
development
in
the
vicinity
of
the
site.
Reuse
assessments
and
the
development
of
future
land
use
assumptions
should
rely
on
readily
available
irmfomation,
to
the
extent
possible.
Determining
the
applicability
and
scope
of
a
reuse
assessment
will
be
dependent
on
site
specific
circumstances
andor
the
overall
approach
anticipated
for
addressing
the
site.
For
example:

e
e
the
owner
desires
to
~
a~~
ta~
n
the
cwent
use,
or
=
ea­
wide
ground
amination
sites
in
highly
developed
wbm
areas,
may
only
require
a
*=
limited
assessment;

(
I
S
future
Band
use
decisions
have
already
been
determined
and
mzy
simply
require
a
review
to
confi~
mthe
infomation;

­
I­
R
9355.7­
06P
e
Large
sites,
or
sites
with
several
operable
units
and
potentially
different
future
use
scenarios,
may
benefit
from
multiple
reuse
assessments,
or
an
iterative
approach
to
developing
fbture
land
use
assumptions.

While
a
reuse
assessment
may
not
be
necessary
at
every
site,
EPA
should
collect
and
summarize
available
information
about
potential
&
we
uses
for
NPL
sites
and
non­
the­
critical
removal
actions,
as
appropriate,
to
form
the
basis
for
the
assumptions
regarding
reasonably
anticipated
hture
land
use.

The
Superfund
Land
Use
Directive
states
that
in
cases
where
the
future
land
use
is
relatively
certain,
the
remedial
action
objective(
s)
generally
should
reflect
this
land
use.
In
this
case,
alternative
future
land
use
scenarios
generally
are
not
required
unless
it
is
impracticable
to
provide
a
protective
remedy
that
allows
for
the
desired
use.
The
Superfund
Land
Use
Directive
also
states
that
in
cases
where
the
reasonably
anticipated
land
use
is
uncertain,
or
where
multiple
uses
are
being
considered,
a
range
of
potential
future
land
use
options
should
be
considered
when
developing
remedial
action
objectives.
For
example,
information
gathered
for
the
reuse
assessment
suggests
the
site
could
be
used
either
for
recreational
purposes
or
for
commercial/
light
industrial
activity.
In
that
case,
when
identifying~
inultiplepotential
reuse
scenarios,
the
reuse
assessment
should
consider
input
from
stakeholders
on
which
scenario
they
believe
is
most
likely.
In
other
cases,
alternative
fLature
land
use
scenarios
can
be
reflected
by
developing
a
range
of
remedial
alternatives
for
detailed
evaluation
that
could
achieve
different
land
we
potentials.

Reuse
assessments
should
have
greatest
applicability
to
sites
with
waste
materials
on
the
surface
andlor
contaminated
soil.
Future
ground
water
use
was
not
extensively
considered
in
the
Superfwnd
Land
Use
Directive.
There
are
separate
expectations
established
in
the
NCP,
Section
300.430
(
a)
(
1)
(
iii)
(
F)
that
  
EPA
expects
to
return
usable
ground
waters
to
their
beneficial
uses,
wherever
practicable,
within
a
time
frame
that
is
reasonable
given
the
particular
circumstances
of
the
site. 
Generally,
ground
water
use
is
determined
independently
from
land
use,
through
Comprehensive
State
Ground
Water
Protection
Programs,
state
ground
water
classifications
and
EPA s
 
Guidelines
for
Ground
Water
Classification
Under
the
EPA
Ground
Water
Protection
strategy, 
Final
Draft
[
198Lb].
However,
it
is
important
to
consider
the
current
and
fbture
ground
water
uses
when
developing
htme
land
use
assumptions,
since
the
need
to
protect
ground
water
quality
may
drive
the
soil
cleanup
levels.
For
example,
portions
of
surface
or
sub­
surface
contamination
that
present
a
threat
to
ground
water
may
require
a
greater
degree
of
cleanup
over
a
larger
area
than
might
be
needed
for
soil
clean
up
alone.
Alternatively,
an
area
of
clean
land
may
be
needed
to
Instdl
a
ground
water
pump
and
treat
system
to
contain
or
restore
underlying
contaminated
ground
water.
Each
of
these
situations
could
affect
fhre
land
use
options
for
the
site.

In
genera&
a
reuse
assessment
can
be
condu
e
entity
conducting
the
EE/
CA.
As
with
other
activities
per
or
EE/
CA,
EPA
can
determine
the
appropriate
IeveX
of
oversight
when
.
EPA
is
responsible
for
ensuring
that
~
t~~~
s
seasonable
~
s
~
regarding
future
Imd
rase
are
considered
in
the
selection
of
a
response
~~~~
n
action.
This
~
~
t
~
should
be
coordinatedtwith~
theostate.

­
2­
The
reuse
assessment
should
provide
sufficient
information
to
develop
realistic
assumptions
ofthe
reasonably
anticipated
futupe
use(
s)
for
a
site.
Items
that
should
be
considered
are
listed
in
Table
1,
which
further
describes
and
builds
upon
the
items
identified
in
the
Superfund
Land
Use
Directive.
The
entity
conducting
the
reuse
assessment
may
use
this
outline
as
a
guide
for
carrying
out
the
assessment.
Each
reme
assessment
will
be
different,
but
this
outline
offers
a
structure
that
should
ensure
a
thorough
evaluation
can
be
performed.
As
noted,
the
scope
and
level
of
effort
needed
to
complete
a
reuse
assessment
will
be
dependent
on
conditions
at
the
site
and
should
be
tailored
accordingly.
Information
supporting
a
reuse
assessment
should
be
obtained
from
existing
and
readily
available
sources
to
the
extent
possible.

Identify
stakeholders
and
their
connection
to
the
site,
e.
g.,
site
owner,
current
user,
developer,
PW,
state
and
local
or
tribal
government,
community
member,
Community
Advisory
Group,
(
CAG),
etc.
Determine
which
stakeholders
are
responsible
for
local
land
use
determinations
Document
the
stakeholders
who
participate
in
$
e
Reuse
Assessment
s
Physical
features:
size,
shape,
topography,
special
features
*
Existing
buildings
and
other
site
improvements
e
Site
location
in
relation
to
residential,
commercial,
industrial,
agriculturaland
recreational
areas
Current
and
past
uses
Neighboring
activities
and
land
uses
Relevant
public
infrastructure:
roads,
utilities,
transit,
parks,
etc.

En~
i~~~~
e~
t~
l
Considerations
Contaminantsand
their
location(
s),
technology
constraints,
to
the
extent
this
information
is
known
*
Potential
restrictions
resulting
from
the
environmental
contamination
Areas
that
are
"
clean"
(
i.
e.,
where
rikks
are
acceptable,
consistent
with
their
planned
use)
and
potentially
available
for
immediate
reuse
e
Ground
water
use
classificatioddetermination
Other
site
characteristics
(
e.
g.,
wetlands,
surface
waters,
upland
habitat,
forested
habitat,
flood
plains)

Person
or
entitv
that
holds
title
to
the
site:
who
controis
access
to
the
site
Any
property
Gens,
bankruptcy
considerations
Site
owner(
s)
preferences
and
plans
Any
plans
for
the
sale
of
the
property
Zoning
Existing
area
master
plans
Federal,
state
or
tribe
and
local
environmentaf
regulations
(
e.
g.,
wetlmds,
Rood
plain,
etc.)
impacting
reuse
Institutionalcontrols
(
e.
g.,
easements,
covenants)
already
in
place
(
I
Historical
and
cultural
resources
9
Future
reuses
that
community
members
would
support
Future
reuses
that
community
members
would
oppose
Cultural
factors
that
may
create
barriers
or
assets
to
any
type
of
hture
reuse
(
historic
buildings,
Native
American
sacred
tands)
Environmentaljustice
issues
­
3­
R
9355.7­
56P
Public
~~~
t~
ative
§
Inhmcture
plans
that
may
influence
the
site
uses
Potential
municipallpublicuses,
includingpark
and
recreational
facility,
transit
facility,
public
building
Publicly
initiated
private
sector
redevelopmentproject
(
e.
g.,
government­
organizedindustrial
park)
Funds
availablekommitted
for
the
redevelopmentof
the
site
Most
Eikelv
Future
Uses
Summarize
the
information
asthe
basis
for
concludingthe
most
likely
future
use
or
uses
I
aaio
Land
use,
including
the
potential
reuse
of
contaminated
sites
after
cleanup,
is
generally
determined
by
local
government
officials
and
private
stakeholders.
Men
formulating
assumptions
about
futblre
land
use,
it
will
be
important
to
consult
with
them.
There
me
key
questions
one
should
try
to
answer
to
arrive
at
the
assumptions
about
future
land
use
that
are
needed
to
support
a
reuse
assessment.
Tke
list
below
draws
on
the
discussion
in
the
Superfimd
Land
Use
Directive
about
the
types
anid
sources
of
infomation
that
should
be
considered.
It
is
not
intended
to
be
comprehensive,
but
includes
questions
that
may
be
appropriate
in
a
large
number
of
cases.
The
questions
that
are
relevant
at
a
specific
site
will
be
determined
by
conditions
at
that
site
and
by
the
scope
of
the
effort
needed
to
properly
assess
the
anticipated
hture
use
of
land.

It
may
be
possible
to
answer
some
of
these
questions
fairly
readily
by
gathering
existing
information
from
available
documents,
by
interviewing
stakeholders,
OJ
by
visiting
the
site.
Some
questions
may
be
answered
by
information
already
obtained
in
the
CQUTS~
ofthe
PRP
search,
or
in
developing
a
cornunity
involvement
plan.
If
it
is
difficult
to
get
infomation
from
the
site
owner
through
interviews,
consider
getting
the
basic
infomation
from
a
title
report
and
a
market
price
appraisal.
These
can
be
obtained
from
a
local
title
and
real
estate
company.
vvlhere
sites
are
part
~
r
of
tribal
lands,
there
are
many
possible
scenarios
for
site
~
~
and
for
making
decisions
s
~
about
future
use.
It
is
most
appropriate
to
consult
with
tribal
government
officials
for
information
about
how
to
work
with
tribes
on
site
ownership
as
well
as
on
other
issues
relevant
to
tribes.
Appendix
A
offers
a
fairly
comprehensive
list
of
sources
that
may
have
information
that
will
be
usefial
when
forming
assumptions
about
potential
reuse.

Consider
the
following
questions:

(
Review
existing
documents)

c
at
were
the
past
U%(
S)
of
the
site?
u.
at
does
tide
and
lien
information
show
about
past
ownership?
*
Are
there
historical
sites,
cultural
factors,
Native
erican
religious
sites
to
consider?

­
4­
I
(
Site
visit
or
interview
with
site
owner,
or
local
government
or
tribal
oficials)

e
What
are
the
current
uses
at
the
site?
e
What
are
the
uses
in
neighboring
areas?
r
What
does
census
informationshow
about
the
local
area?
.
B
,

What
is
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
(
e.
g.,
residential,
mixed
use,
in
transition
from
one
type
of
use
to
another)?
What
are
the
trends
in
land
use
in
the
surroundingarea
(
e.
g.,
decreasing
residential
population,
increasing
comerciaVindustrid
use,
ente
rise
zone
designation)?
Are
there
any
local
Brownfields
assessment
and
redeve
rgopment
activities?

(
Interview
with
current
owner)

What
are
the
owner's
plans
for
the
site
following
cleanup?
Will
the
use
remain
the
same?
Will
the
site
be
sold?
To
whom?

(
P
Is
there
a
prospectivepurchaser
&
r
the
property?
e
If
there
are
no
current
plans,
what
does
the
current
owner
consider
to
be
the
likely
use?
What
is
the
basis
for
this
conclusion?
I
at
act^^^
~~~~~

or
~~~~~

Fubrere
Use?
(
Documents,
maps,
zoning
regulations,
land
records
and
interviews
with
local
government
oficials
in
departments
such
as
Planning,
Public
Works,
Environment
and
Economic
Development;
or
tribal
government
oficials,
where
appropriate,
who
have
jurisdiction
or
influence
over
land
use)

r
c
r
5
c
What
zoning
laws
and
ordinances
apply?
What
is
current
zoning
for
the
site?
Is
the
zoning
expected
to
change
in
the
near
futunp?
Why?
What
are
the
applicable
local
area
land
use
plans,
master
plans,
etc.?
How
do
they
affect
the
site?
What
local
restrictions
on
property
use
apply?
Are
tbere
any
existing
institutional
controls?
What
are
the
property
boundaries?
Are
there
any
obvious
advantages,
obstacles
or
other
factorsthat
may
affect
reuse
of
the
site,
such
as
size
of
the
parcel,
waterfront
access,
steep
slopes
or
irregular
terrain,
heavy
traffic
on
the
access
street,
difficult
access
to
the
site,
abandoned
buildings,
etc.?
If
the
site
is
adjacent
to
surface
water,
are
there
any
resource
protection
programs
or
other
restrictions
(
e.
g.,
fish
advisories)
in
place
or
planned
that
could
impact
reuse?
Are
there
ground
water
use
determinations,
wellhead
protection
areas,
recharge
areas
and
other
aeas
identified
in
the
state's
Comprehensive
Ground
Water
Protection
Program?
Are
there
flood
plains,
wetlands,
or
endangered
or
threatened
species
to
be
taken
into
account?
What
other
land
or
ground
water
use
regulations
or
controls
affect
the
reuse
potential?
~
Are
there
my.~
~~~~~
ove~
e~
t
t
~
glms
that
might
affect
reuse?
~
~

­
5­
5
OSWER
9355.4­
06P
­

(
Interviews
with
local
government
oficials,
or
tribal
government
oficials
where
appropriate,
who
havejurisdiction
or
influence
over
land
use)

e
Who
are
the
key
individuals
that
will
be
involved
in
determining
reuse
of
the
property?
What
are
the
local
officials 
assessment
of
what
is
likely
to
happen
at
the
site?
Have
any
ideas
for
reuse
been
discussed
for
this
site?
What
are
they?
How
certain
and
detailed
are
the
ideas
for
reuse?
Candocuments
be
obtained
that
describe
them?
Have
they
been
submitted
to
the
planning
agency
for
approval?
With
what
result?
Who
will
be
the
lead
person
or
Agency
for
implementing
the
plans
for
reuse?
What
other
individuals
have
important
information
regarding
the
reuse
of
the
site?
If
there
are
no
current
plans
for
the
site,
who
will
determine
future
site
reuse
and
how
will
it
be
accomplished?

(
Interview
community
groups
and
leaders,
including
TAG
grantees
and
CAG
kwdership,
gsuch
groups
exis?)

e
How
is
the
comunity
involved
in
local
land
use
planning?
e
What
are
the
community s
expectations
for
reuse
of
the
site?

@
Mat
would
community
members
like
to
see?

0
What
would
community
members
oppose?
e
If
there
are
reuse
ideas
or
plans
being
discussed,
what
do
community
members
think
about
these
plans?

EPA
should
integrate
site­
specific
information
on
environmental
conditions,
to
the
extent
available
at
the
time
the
reuse
assessment
is
being
done,
with
the
results
of
the
site
visit,
interviews,
md
document
review
to
ensure
realistic
future
land
use
assumptions
are
developed.
If
an
entity
other
than
the
RPWOSC
is
conducting
the
Reuse
Assessment,
EPA
should
decide
at
the
outset
how
site­
specific
infomation
on
environmental
conditions
will
be
incorporated
into
the
analysis.
Consider
the
following:

@
own
about
the
nature
and
extent
af
the
contamination
that
could
impact
future
Imd
use
(
eg.,
major
con
inants,
location,
depths,
vol~
mes,
?

@
there
any
uses
or
activities
on
the
site
tbt
may
be
precluded
due
to
the
.<
~

cont~
i~
atio~,
cleanup
process
or
residual
co~~
i~
a~~
on?

@
Are
there
portions
ofthe
site
that
are
not
co~~~~
ate~
and
not
likely
to
be
needed
phase
that
could
be
made
available
for
reuse
on
an
expedited
basis?
B
Are
there
any
institutional
controls
that
currently
exist
or
are
likely
to
exist
in
the
future?
If
institutional
controls
exist,
what
are
they?
Have
they
been
effective?

As
noted
above,
and
as
reflected
in
the
Superbd
Land
Use
Directive,
the
reuse
assessmentprocess
should
include
soliciting
community
input
on
fkture
land
use
considerations
for
sites.
Community
input
can
be
particularly
useful
for
sites
where
the
future
land
use
is
uncertain
and
should
be
directed
toward
understanding
the
types
or
categories
of
future
land
use
that
the
community
believes
would
be
appropriate
for
the
site,
and
categories
of
land
use
that
the
community
believes
inappropriate.
This
information
can
be
used
as
an
indicator
of
the
potential
reliability
and
reasonableness
of
the
future
land
use
assumptions
and
their
potential
relevance
for
consideration
in
the
remedy
selectionprocess.

In
addition,
mswptions
regarding
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use
and
their
impact
on
the
baseline
risk
assessment,
response
action
objectives
and
the
proposed
response
action,
should
be
integrated
into
the
CERCLA
community
involvement
process.
Future
land
use
assumptions
should
be
included
in
fact
sheets,
public
meetings
and
other
communication
tools,
as
appropriate,
over
the
course
of
the
response.
action.

States
and
tribes
have
substantial
and
meaningfbl
involvement
in
Superfund
cleanups.
Therefore,
it
is
important
to
involve
state
officials
and
tribaI
leaders
in
the
reuse
assessment
and
in
the
developmentofhture
land
use
assumptions.
This
is
especially
true
at
Fund­
financed
sites
where
states
have
a
cost
share
obligation
for
the
response.
State
officials
can
provide
useful
informationregarding
economic
development
incentiveprograms
or
other
state­
lead
activities
that
could
impact
the
potential
future
land
use
for
the
site.
Tribes
can
also
supply
useful
information
in
many
areas
relevant
to
reuse
assessment.
If
there
are
differences
on
land
use
questions
that
involve
tribes,
work
with
tribal
leaders
to
resolve
the
issues.

After
site
visits,
interviews,
community
meetings
and
document
reviews,
EPA
or
the
entity
conducting
the
reuse
assessment
should
have
basic
infomation
regarding
the
potential
future
land
use
for
the
site.
The
informationcollected
should
be
documented
in
a
report,
or
as
a
section
of
the
RIFS
or
EEICA,
identifying
md
supporting
the
potential
future
land
use@>.
This
documentation
should
be
used
by
the
entity
conducting
the
M/
FS
or
EE/
CA
and
EBA
for
developing
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use
assumptions
for
the
site.

Results
of
the
reuse
assessment
should
be
described
in
the
decision
document
 or
the
r~
~
response
action
(
Action
~
e
~
oor
Record
ofdDecision).
The
decision
document
should
discuss
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use(
s)
and
the
basis
for
these
assumptions.
The
decision
docwent
should
discuss
how
the
ktwe
land
use
assumptions
were
addressed
in
the
baseline
risk
assessment
and
feasibility
study
or
the
streamlined
risk
evaluation
and
EE/
CA
activities
for
no~­
t~~~­~
r~~~
ca~
removak.
The
decision
document
also
should
describe
the
types
of
uses
that
be
supported
at
the
site
following
et^^^
of
the
response
action.
The
basis
for
­
7­
OSmR
9355.7­
06P
selection
of
the
response
action
should
be
consistent
with
CERCLA
and
the
NCP.

en
the
reuse
assessment
and
the
selected
remedy
result
in
categories
of
allowable
htwe
land
use
(
e.
g.
commercial,
industrial,
recreational),
but
not
unrestricted
use,
appropriate
institutional
controls
should
be
identified
in
the
decision
document.
Institutional
controls
should
be
used,
where
appropriate,
to
prevent
exposure
to
contamination
remaining
on­
site
and
to
provide
access
to,
or
protect,
components
of
the
remedy.
Use
of
institutional
controls
should
be
coordinated
withstate
and
local
government
officials
and
the
community
to
ensure
they
can
be
implemented
and
maintained
as
planned.
(
See:
  
Institutional
Controls:
a
Site
Manager s
Guide
to
Identifying,
Evaluating
and
§
electing
Institutional
Controls
at
Superfund
and
RCRA
Corrective
Action
Cleanups, 
OSWER
9355.0­
74FS­
P,
EPA
540­
F­
00­
005,
September
2000.)

Attachments:
1.
Appendix
A
­
Sources
of
Useful
Information
2.
Appendix
B
­
Glossary
of
Terms,
Acronyms
and
Abbreviations
OSWR
9355.7­
06P
I
Site­
Related
Sources
Current
owner
and
Future
owner
Agenthroker
on
Lendershanks
who
Will
finance
reuse
development
Environmental
consultant
Local
Government
Mayor
or
County
Executive
City
Manager
or
County
Administrator
City
or
County
Council
Planning
Department/
Commission
Department
of
Economic
Development,
or
local
economic
development
corporation
Department
of
Environment
Department
of
Public
Works
Brownfields
Program
Department
of
Housing
and
Cornunity
Development
State/
Tribal
Government
State
or
tribal
roject
manager
Department
oPEconomic
Development
Department
of
the
Environment
Department
of
Planning
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development
Department
of
Water
and
Utilities
Department
of
Parks
and
Recreation
Communi&
Local
cornunity
development
corporations
Local
environmental
organizations
Influentialcommuni
members
National
and
regiona7tribal
environmental
organizations
CAGs
TAG
groups
Private
Sector
Real
estate
brokers
and
appraisers
Site
selectiodsearch
firms
Bds/
lenders
Attorneys
­
real
estate,
environmental,
land
use
Chambers
of
Commerce
Environmental
Protection
Aaencv
­
9­
OSWR
9355.7­
06P
GAG
CERCLA
EE/
CA
EPA
NCP
NPL
OEIRR
OSC
03wEw
PW
ROD
TAG
CRO
ss
Applicable
or
Relevant
and
AppropriateRequirements
in
the
Superfund
Response
Process
Cornunity
Advisory
Group
ComprehensiveEnvironmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act,
commonly
known
as
Superfund
Engineering
EvaluatiodCost
Analysis
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
National
Contingency
Plan
National
Priorities
List
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
On­
Scene
Coordinator
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
Potentially
ResponsibleParties
Record
of
Decision
Remedial
Investigatiofleasibility
Study
Technical
Assistance
Grant
Community
Reuse
Organization
Site
Specific
Advisory
CTI
CY
TON,
D.
C.
20460
May
25,
1995
:<.

OFFICE
OF
SOLID
WASTE
AND
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
OSWER
Directive
No.
9355.7­
04
MO
SUBdECTr
Land
Use
in
the
CERCLA
Remedy
Selection
Process
FROM
:
Elliott
P.
Laws
s/
Assistant
Administrator
TO
Director,
Waste
Management
Division
Regions
I,
IV,
V,
VI1
Director,
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
Division
Region
I1
Director,
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Division
Regions
111,
VI,
VIII;
IX
Director,
Hazardous
Waste
Division,
Region
X
Director,
Environmental
Services
Division
Regions
I,
VI,
VI1
This
directive
presents
additional
information
for
considering
land
use
in
making
remedy
selection
decisions
under
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(
CERCLA)
at
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL)
sites
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
believes
that
early
community
involvement,
with
a
particular
focus
on
the
community's
desired
future
uses
of
property
associated
with
the
CERCLA
site,
should
result
in
a
more
democratic
decision­
making
process;
greater
community
support
for
remedies
selected
as
a
result
of
this
process;
and
more
expedited,
cost­
effective
cleanups.

The
major
points
of
this
directive
are:

Discussions
with
local
land
use
planning
authorities,
appropriate
officials,
and
the
public,
as
appropriate,
OSWR
9355.7­
04
should
be
conducted
as
early
as
possible
in
the
scoping
phase
of
the
Remedial
Investigation/
Feasibility
Study
(
RI/
FS),
This
will
assist
EPA
in
understanding
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
uses
of
the
land
on
which
the
Superfund
site
is
located;

If
the
site
is
located
in
a
community
that
is
likely
to
have
environmental
justice
concerns,
extra
efforts
should
be
made
to
reach
out
to
and
consult
with
segments
of
the
community
that
are
not
necessarily
reached
by
conventional
communication
vehicles
or
through
local
officials
and
planning
commissions;

Remedial
action
objectives
developed
during
the
RI/
FS
should
reflect
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use
or
uses;

Future
land
use
assumptions
allow
the
baseline
risk
assessment
and
the
feasibility
study
to
be
focused
on
developing
practicable
and
cost
effective
remedial
alternatives.
These
alternatives
should
lead
to
site
activities
which
are
consistent
with
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use.
However,
there
may
be
reasons
to
analyze
implications
associated
with
additional
land
uses;

Land
uses
that
will
be
available
following
completion
of
remedial
action
are
determined
as
part
of
the
remedy
selection
process.
During
this
process,
the
goal
of
realizing
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
uses
is
considered
along
with
other
factors.
Any
combination
of
unrestricted
uses,
restricted
uses,
or
use
for
long­
term
waste
management
may
result.

Discussions
with
local
land
use
authorities
and
other
locally
affected
parties
to
make
assumptions
about
future
land
use
are
also
appropriate
in
the
RCRA
context.
EPA
recognizes
that
RCRA
facilities
typically
 
are
industrial
properties
that
are
actively
managed,
rather
than
the
abandoned
sites
that
are
often
addressed
under
CERCLA.
Therefore,
consideration
oaf
nonresidential
uses
is
especially
likely
to
be
appropriate
for
RCRA
facility
cleanups.
Decisions
regarding
future
land
use
that
are
made
as
part
of
RCRA
corrective
actions
raise
particular
issues
for
RCRA
(
e.
g.,
timing,
property
transfers,
and
the
viability
of
long­
term
permit
or
other
controls)
in
ensuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
EPW
intends
to
address
the
issue
of
future
land
use
as
it
relates
specifically
to
RCRA
facility
cleanups
in
subsequent
guidance
and/
or
rulemakings.

This
guidance
is
also
relevant
for
Federal
Facility
sites
Land
use
assumptions
at
sites
that
care
undergoing
base
closure
­
2­
OSWER
9355.9­
04
may
be
different
than
at
sites
where
a
Federal
agency
will
be
maintaining
control
of
the
facility.
Most
land
management
agency
sites
will
remain
in
Federal
ownership
after
remedial
actions.
In
these
cases,
Forest
Land
Management
Plans
and
other
resource
management
guidelines
may
help
develop
reasonable
assumptions
about
future
uses
of
the
land.
At
all
such
sites,
however,
this
document
can
focus
the
land
use
consideration
toward
appropriate
options.
2
Reasonably
anticipated
future
use
of
the
land
at
NPL
sites
is
an
important
consideration
in
determining
the
appropriate
extent
of
remediation.
Future
use
of
the
land
will
affect
the
types
of
exposures
and
the
frequency
of
exposures
that
may
occur
to
any
residual
contamination
remaining
on
the
site,
which
in
turn
affects
the
nature
of
the
remedy
chosen.
On
the
other
hand,
the
alternatives
selected
through
the
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substance
Contingency
Plan
(
NCP)
­[
55
Fed.
Reg.
8666,
March
8,
19901
process
for
CERCLA
remedy
selection
determine
the
extent
to
which
hazardous
constituents
remain
at
the
site,
and
therefore
affect
subsequent
available
land
and
ground
water
uses.

The
NCP
preamble
specifically
discusses
land
use
assumptions
regarding
the
baseline
risk
assessment.
The
baseline
risk
assessment
provides
the
basis
for
taking
a
remedial
action
at
a
Superfund
site
and
supports
the
development
of
remedial
action
objectives.
Land
use
assumptions
affect
the
exposure
pathways
that
are
evaluated
in
the
baseline
risk
assessment.
Current
land
use
is
critical
in
determining
whether
there
is
a
current
risk
associated
with
a
Superfund
site,
and
future
land
use
is
important
in
estimating
potential
future
threats.
The
results
of
the
risk
assessment
aid
in
determining
the
degree
of
remediation
necessary
to
ensure
long­
termprotection
at
NPL
sites.

EPA
has
been
criticized
for
too
often
assuming
that
future
use
will
be
residential.
In
many
cases,
residential
use
is
the
least
restricted
land
use
and
where
human
activities
are
associated
with
the
greatest
potential
for
exposures.
This
directive
is
intended
to
facilitate
future
remedial
decisions
at
NPL
sites
by
outlining
a
public
process
and
sources
of
information
which
should
be
considered
in
developing
reasonable
assumptions
regarding
future
land
use.

This
directive
expands
on
discussions
provided
in
the
2Federal
agency
responsibility
under
CERCLA
120
(
h)
(
31,
which
relates
to
additional
clean
up
which
may
be
required
to
allow
for
unrestricted
use
of
the
property
is
not
addressed
in
this
guidance,

­
3­
BSWR
9355.7­
04
preamble
to
the
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substance
CDntingency
Plan
(
NCP);
IIRisk
Assessment
Guidance
for
Superfund
Vol.
I,
Human
Health
Evaluation
Manual"
(
PartA)
(
EPA/
540/
1­
89/
002,
Dec.
1989);
"
Guidance
for
conducting
Remedial
Investigations
and
Feasibility
Studies
Under
CERCLA"
(
OSWER
Directive
9355.3­
01,
Oct.
1988);
and
"
Role
of
the
Baseline
Risk
Assessment
in
Superfund
Remedy
Selection
Decisions"
(
OSWER
Directive'
9355.0­
30,
April
22,
1991)
­

This
Land
Use
directive
may
have
the
most
relevance
in
situations
where
surface
soil
is
the
primary
exposure
pathway.
Generally,
where
soil
contamination
is
impacting
ground
water,
protection
of
the
ground
water
may
drive
soil
cleanup
Levels.
Consideration
of
future
ground
water
use
for
CERCLA
sites
is
not
addressed
in
this
document.
There
are
separate
expectations
established
for
ground
water
in
the
NCP
rule
section
300.430
(
a)(
1)(
iii)(
F)
that
"
EPA
expects
to
return
usable
ground
waters
to
their
beneficial
uses,
wherever
practicable,
within
a
timeframe
that
is
reasonable
given
the
particular
circumstances
of
the
site".

This
directive
has
two
primary
objectives.
First,
this
directive
promotes
early
discussions
with
local
land
use
planning
authorities,
local
officials,
and
the
public
regarding
reasonably
anticipated
future
uses
of
the
property
on
which
an
NPL,
site
is
located.
Second,
this
directive
gromotes
the
use
of
that
information
to
formulate
realistic
assumptions
regarding
future
land
use
and
clarifies
how
these
assumptions
fit
in
and
influence
the
baseline
risk
assessment,
the
development
of
alternatives,
and
the
CERCLA
remedy
selection
process.

The
approach
in
this
guidance
is
meant
to
be
considered
at
current
and
future
sites
in
the
RI/
FS
pipeline,
to
the
extent
possible.
This
directive
is
not
intended
to
suggest
that
previous
remedy
selection
decisions
should
be
re­
opened.

In
order
to
ensure
use
of
realistic
assumptions
regarding
future
land
uses
at;
a
site,
EPA
should
discuss
reasonable
anticipated
future
uses
of
the
site
with
local
land
use
planninq
authorities,
local
officials.
and
the
public,
as
appropriate,
as
earlv
as
possible
durins
the
scopinq
phase
of
the
RI/
FS.
EPA
should
gain
an
understanding
of
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
uses
at
a
particular
Superfund
site
to
perform
the
risk
assessment
and
select
the
appropriate
remedy.

A
visual
inspection'of
the
site
and
its
surrounding
area
is
­
4­
BSWW
9355.7­
04
a
good
starting
point
in
developing
assumptions
regarding
future
land
use.
Discussions
with
the
local
land
use
authorities
and
appropriate
officials
should
follow.
Discussions
with
the
public
can
be
accomplished
through
a
public
meeting
and/
or
other
means.
By
developing
realistic
assumptions
based
on
information
gathered
from
these
sources
early
in
the
RI/
FS
process,
EPA
may
develop
remedial
alternatives
that
are
consistent
with
the
anticipated
future
use.

The
development
of
assumptions
regarding
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use
should
not
become
an
extensive,
independent
research
project.
Site
managers
should
use
existing
information
to
the
extent
possible,
much
of
which
will
be
available
from
local
land
use
planning
authorities.
Sources
and
types
of
information
that
may
aid
EPA
in
determining
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:

Current
land
use
Zoning
laws
Zoning
maps
Comprehensive
community
master
plans
Population
growth
patterns
and
projections
(
e.
g.,
Bureau
of
Census
projections1
Accessibility
of
site
to
existing
infrastructure
(
e.
g.,
transportationand
public
utilities)
Institutional
controls
currently
in
place
Site
location
in
relation
to
urban,
residential,
commercial,
industrial,
agricultural
and
recreational
areas
Federal/
State
land
use
designation
fFederal/
State
control
over
designated
lands
range
from
established
uses
for
the
general
public,
such
as
national
parks
or
State
recreational
areas,
to
governmental
facilities
providing
extensive
site
access
restrictions,
such
as
Department
of
Defense
facilities)
Historical
or
recent
development
patterns
Cultural
factors
(
e.
g.,
historical
sites
Native
American
religious
sites)
Natural
resources
information
Potential
vulnerability
of
ground
water
to
contaminants
that
might
migrate
from
soil
Environmental
justice
issues
Location
of
on­
site
or
nearby
wetlands
Proximity
of
site
to
a
flood
plain
Proximity
of
site
to
critical
habitats
of
endangered
or
threatened
species
Geographic
and
geologic
information
Location
of
Wellhead
Protection
areas,
recharge
areas,
and
other
areas
identified
in
a
State's
Comprehensive
Ground­
water
Protection
Program
OSWR
9355.7­
04
These
types
of
information
should
be
considered
when
developing
the
assumptions
about
future
land
use.
Interaction
with
the
public,
which
includes
all
stakeholders
affected
by
the
<.

site,
should
serve
to
increase
the
certainty
in
the
assumptions
made
regarding
future
land
use
at
an
NPL
site
and
increase
the
confidence
expectations
about
anticipated
future
land
use
are,
in
fact,
reasonable.

For
exampl.
e,
future
industrial
land
use
is
likely
to
be
a
reasonable
assumption
where
a
site
is
currently
used
for
industrial
purposesr
is
located
in
an
area
where
the
surroundings
zoned
for
industrial
use,
and
the
comprehensive
plan
predicts
the
site
will
continue
to
be
used
for
industrial
purposes.

NPL
sites
are
located
in
diverse
areas
of
the
country,
with
great
variability
in
land
use
pl­
anningpractices.
For
some
NPL
sites,
the
future
land
use
of
a
site
may
have
been
carefully
considered
through
local,
public,
participatory,
planning
processes,
such
as
zoning
hearings,
master
plan
approvals
or
other
vehicles.
When
this
is
the
case,
local
residents
around
the
Superfund
site
are
likely
to
demonstrate
substantial
agreement
with
the
local
land
use
planning
authority
on
the
future
use
of
the
property.
Where
there
is
substantial
agreement
among
local
residents
and
land
use
planning
agencies,
owners
and
developers,
EPA
can
rely
with
a
great
deal
of
certainty
on
the
future
land
use
already
anticipated
for
the
site.
For
other
NPL
sites,
however,
the
absence
or
nature
of
a
local
planning
process
may
yield
considerably
less
certainty
about
what
assumptions
regarding
future
use
are
reasonable.
In
some
instances
the
local
residents
near
the
Superfund
site
may
feel
disenfranchised
from
the
local
land
use
planning
and
development
process.
This
may
be
an
especially
important
issue
where
there
are
concerns
regarding
environmental
justice
in
the
neighborhood
around
the
MPL
site.
Consistent
with
the
principle
of
fairness,
EPA
should
make
an
extra
effort
to
reach
out
to
the
local
community
to
establish
appropriate
future
land
use
assumptions
at
such
sites,

Future
land
use
assumptions
allow
the
baseline
risk
assessment
and
the
feasibilitv
studv
to
focus
on
the
development
of
Dracticable
and
cost­
effective
remedial
alternatives,
leadinq
to
site
activities
which
are
consistent
with
the
reasonably
anticirmted
future
land
use.

The
baseline
risk
assessment
generally
needs
only
to
consider
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use;
however,
it
may
be
valuable
to
evaluate
risks
associated
with
other
land
­
6­
uses.
The
NCP
preamble
(
55
Fed.
Reg.
8710)
states
that
in
the
baseline
risk
assessment,
more
than
one
future
land
use
assumption
may
be
considered
when
decision
makers
wish
to
understand
the
implications
of
unexpected
exposures.
Especially
where
there
is
some
uncertainty
regarding
the
anticipated
future
land
use,
it
may
be
useful
to
compare
the
potential
risks
associated
with
several
land
use
scenarios
to
estimate
the
impact
on
human
health
and
the
environment
should
the
land
use
unexpectedly
change.
The
magnitude
of
such
potential
impacts
may
be
an
important
consideration
in
determining
whether
and
how
institutional
controls
should
be
used
to
restrict
future
uses.
If
the
baseline
risk
assessment,
evaluates
a
future
use
under
which
exposure
is
limited,
it
will
not
serve
the
traditional
role,
evaluating
a
"
no
actionr1scenario.
A
remedy,
i.
e.,
institutional
controls
to
limit
future
exposure,
will
be
required
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
addition
to
analyzing
human
health
exposure
scenarios
associated
with
certain
land
uses,
ecological
exposures
may
also
need
to
be
considered.

Remedial
action
objectives
provide
the
foundation
upon
which
remedial
cleanup
alternatives
are
developed,
In
seneral,
remedial
action
obiectives
should
be
develoged
in
order
to
develop
alternatives
that
would
achieve
cleanup
levels
associated
with
the
reasonablv
anticipated
future
land
use
over
as
much
of
the
site
as
possible.
EPA
recognizes,
however,
that
achieving
either
the
reasonably
anticipated
land
use,
or
the
land
use
preferred
by
the
community,
may
not
be
practicable
across
the
entire
site,
or
in
some
cases,
at
all*
For
example,
as
RI/
FS
data
become
available,
they
may
indicate
that
the
remedial
alternatives
under
consideration
 or
achieving
a
level.
of
cleanup
consistent
with
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use
are
not
cost­
effective
nor
pralcticable.
If
this
is
the
case,
the
remedial
action
objective
may
be
revised
which
may
result
in
different,
more
reasonable
land
use(
s)
.

EPA's
remedy
selection
expectations
described
in
section
300.430(
a)
(
1)(
iii)
of
the
NCP
should
also
be
considered
when
developing
remedial
action
objectives.
Where
practicable,
EPA
expects
to
treat
principal
threats,
to
use
engineering
controls
such
as
containment
for
low­
level
threats,
to
use
institutional
controls
to
supplement
engineering
controls,
to
consider
the
use
of
innovative
technology,
and
to
return
usable
ground
waters
to
beneficial
uses
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
(
Some
types
of
applicable
or
relevant
and
appropriate
requirements
(
ARARs)
define
protective
cleanup
levels
which
may,
in
turn,
influence
post­
remediation
land
use
potential.)

In
cases
where
the
future
land
use
is
relatively
certain,
the
remedial
action
objective
generally,
should
reflect
this
land
­
7­
OSWER
9355.7­
04
use.
Generally,
it
need
not
include
alternative
land
use
scenarios
unless,
as
discussed
above,
it
is
impracticable.
to
provide
a
protective
remedy
that
allows
for
that
use.
A
landfill
site
is
an
example
where
it
is
highly
likely
that
the
future
land
use
will
remain
unchanged
(
i.
e.,
long­
termwaste
management
area),
given
the
NCPIS
expectation
that
treatment
of
high
volumes
of
waste
generally
will
be
impracticable
and
the
fact
that
EPA's
.
presumptive
remedy
for
landfills
is
containment.
In
such
a
case,
a
remedial
action
objective
could
be
established
with
a
very
high
degree
of
certainty
to
reflect
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use.

In
cases
where
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use
is
highly
uncertain,
a
range
of
the
reasonably
likely
future
land
uses
should
be
considered
in
developing
remedial
action
objectives.
These
likely
future
land
uses
can
be
reflected
by
developing
a
range
of
remedial
alternatives
that
will
achieve
different
land
use
potentials.
The
remedy
selection
process
will
determine
which
alternative
is
most
appropriate
for
the
site
and,
consequently,
the
land
use(
s)
available
following
remediation.

As
discussed
in
"
Role
of
the
Baseline
Risk
Assessment
in
Superfund
Remedy
Selection
Decisions"
(
OSWER
Directive
9355.0­
30,
April
22,
19911,
EPA
has
established
risk
range
for
carcinogens
within
which
EPA
strives
to
manage
site
risks,
EPA
recognizes
that
a
specific
cleanup
level
within
the
acceptable
risk
range
may
be
associated
with
more
than­
oneland
use
(
e.
g.,
an
industrial
cleanup
to
may
also
allow
for
residential
use
at
a
10
­
4
risk
level.)
It
is
not
EPAIs
intent
that
the
risk
range
be
partitioned
into
risk
standards
based
solely
on
categories
of
land
use
(
e­
g.,
with
residential
cleanups
at
the
lou6level
and
industrial
cleanups
at
the
10
­
4
risk
level.)
Rather,
the
risk
range
provides
the
necessary
flexibility
to
address
the
technical­
and
cost
limitations,
and
the
performance
and
risk
uncertainties
inherent
in
all
waste
remediation
efforts.

As
a
result
of
the
comparative
analysis
of
alternatives
with
respect
to
EPA's
nine
evaluation
criteria,
EPA
selects
a
site­
specific
remedy.
The
remedy
determines
the
cleanup
levels,
the
volume
of
contaminated
material
to
be
treated,
and
the
volume
of
contaminated
material
to
be
contained.
Consequently,
the
remedy
selection
decision
determines
the
size
of
the
area
that
can
be
returned
to
productive
use
and
the
particular
types
o 
uses
that
will
be
possible
following
remediation.

The
volume
and
concentration
of
contaminants
left
on­
site,
and
thus
the
degree
of
residual
risk
at
a
site,
will
affect
future
land
use.
For
example,
a
remedial
alternative
may
include
leaving­
in
place
contaminants
in
soil
at
concentrations
­
8­
OSWR
9355.7­
04
protective
for
industrial
exposures,
but
not
protective
for
residential
exposures.
In
this
case,
institutional
controls
should
be
used
to
ensure
that
industrial
use
of
the
land
is
maintained
and
to
prevent
risks
from
residential
exposures.
Conversely,
a
remedial
alternative
may
result
in
no
waste
left
in
place
and
allow
for
unrestricted
use
(
e.
g.,
residential
use).

Resu%
ts
of
the
Remedv
Sellectiola
Process
Several
potential
land
use
situations
could
result
from
EPA's
remedy
selection
decision.
They
are:

The
remedy
achieves
cleanup
levels
that
allow
the
entire
site
to
be
available
for
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use
in
the
baseline
risk
assessment
(
or,
wliere
future
land
use
is
uncertain,
all
uses
that
could
reasonably
be
anticipated).

The
remedy
achieves
cleanup
levels
that
allow
most,
but
not
all,
of
the
site
to
be
available
for
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use.
For
example,,
in
order
to
be
cost
effective
and
practicable,
the
remedy
may
require
creation
of
a
long­
term
waste
management
area
for
containment
of
treatment
residuals
or
low­
level
waste
on
a
small
portion
of
the
site.
The
cleanup
levels
in
this
portion
of
the
site
might
allow
for
a
more
restricted
land
use.

The
remedy
achieves
cleanup
levels
that
require
a
more
restricted
land
use
than
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use
for
the
entire
site.
This
situation
occurs
when
no
remedial
alternative
that
is
cost­
effective
or
practicable
will
achieve
the
cleanup
levels
consistent
with
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use,
The
site
may
still
be
used
for
productive
purposes,
but
the
use
would
be
more
restricted
than
the
reasonably
anticipated
future
land
use.
Furthermore,
the
more
restricted
use
could
be
a
long­
term
waste
management
area
over
all
or
a
portion
of
the
site.

If
any
remedial
alternative
developed
during
the
FS
will
require
a
restricced
land
use
in
order
to
be
protective,
it
is
essential
that
the
alternative
include
components
that
will
ensure
that
it
remain
protective.
In
particular,
institutional
controls
will
generally
have
to
be
included
in
the
alternative
to
prevent
an
unanticipated
change
in
land
use
that
could
result
in
­
9­
OSWER
9355.4­
04
unacceptable
exposures
to
residual
contamination,
or,
at
a
minimum,
alert
future
users
to
the
residual
risks
and
monitor
for
any
changes
in
use.
In
such
cases,
institutional
controls
will
play
a
key
role
in
ensuring
long­
term
protectiveness
and
should
be
evaluated
and
implemented
with
the
same
degree
of
care
as
is
given
to
other
elements
of
the
remedy.
In
developing
remedial
alternatives
that
include
institutional
controls,
EPA
should
determine:
the
type
of
institutional
control
to
be
used,
the
existence
of
the
authority
to
implement
the
institutional
control,
and
the
appropriate
entity sresolve
and
ability
to
implement
the
institutional
control.
An
alternative
may
anticipate
two
or
more
options
for
establishing
institutional
controls,
but
should
fully
evaluate
all
such
options.
A
variety
of
institutional
controls
may
be
used
such
as
deed
restrictions
and
deed
notices,
and
adoption
of
land
use
controls
by
a
local
government.
These
controls
either
prohibit
certain
kinds
of
site
uses
or,
at
a
minimum,
notify
potential
owners
or
land
users
of
the
presence
of
hazardous
substances
remaining
on
site
at
levels
that
are
not
protective
for
all
uses.
Where
exposure
must
be
Limited
to
assure
protectiveness,
a
deed
notice
alone
generally
will
not
provide
a
sufficiently
protective
remedy.
While
the
ROD
need
not
always
specify
the
precise
type
of
control
to
be
imposed,
sufficient
analysis
should
be
shown
in
the
FS
and
ROD
to
support
a
conclusion
that
effective
implementation
of
institutional
controls
can
reasonably
be
expected.

Suppose,
for
example,
that
a
selected
remedy
will
be
protective
for
industrial
land
use
and
low
levels
of
hazardous
substances
will
remain
on
site.
An
industry
may
still
be
able
to
operate
its
business
with
the
selected
remedy
in
place.
Institutional
controls,
however,
generally
will
need
to
be
established
to
ensure
the
land
is
not
used
for
other,
less
restricted
purposes,
such
as
residential
use,
or
to
alert
potential
buyers
of
any
remaining
contamination.

Where
waste
is
left
on­
site
at
levels
that
would
require
limited
use
and
restricted
exposure,
EPA
will
conduct
reviews
at
least
every
five
years
to
monitor
the
site
for
any
changes.
Such
reviews
should
analyze
the
implementation
and
effectiveness
of
institutional
controls
with
the
same
degree
of
care
as
other
parts
of
the
remedy,
Should
land
use
change,
it
will
be
necessary
to
evaluate
the
implications
of
that
change
for
the
selected
remedy,
and
whether
the
remedy
remains
protective.
EPA ,
s
role
in
any
subsequent
Eadditional
cleanup
will
be
determined
on
a
site­
specificbasis.
If
landowners
or
others
decide
at
a
future
date
to
change
the
land
use
in
such
a
way
that
makes
further
cleanup
necessary
to
ensure
prokectiveness,
CERCLA
does
not
prevent
them
from
conducting
such
a
cleanup
as
long
as
protectiveness
of
the
remedy
is
not
compromised,
(
EPA
may
invoke
­
10­
I.

OSWR
9355.7­
04
CERCLA
section
122(
e)
(
61,
if
necessary,
to
prevent
actions
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
original
remedy.)
In
general,
EPA
would
not
expect
to
become
involved
actively
in
the
conduct
or
oversight
of
such
cleanups.
EPA,
however,
retains
its
authority
to
take
further
response
action
where
necessary
to
ensure
protectiveness,­

If
you
have
any
questions
concerning
this
directive,
please
call
Sherri
Clark
at
703­
603­
9043.

NOTICE:
The
policies
set
out
in
this
memorandum
are
intended
solely
as
guidance.
They
are
not
intended,
nor
can
they
be
relied
upon,
to
create
any
rights
enforceable
by
any
party
in
litigation
with
the
United
States.
EPA
officials
may
decide
to
follow
the
guidance
provided
in
this
memorandum,
or
to
act
at
variance
with
the
guidance,
based
on
an
analysis
of
specific
site
circumstances.
Remedy
selection­
decisionsare
made
and
justified
on
a
case­
specific
basis.
The
Agency
also
reserves
the
right
to
change
this
guidance
at
any
time
without
public
notice.

­
1
1­