(d) RESPONSE OPTION IDENTIFICATION.—(1) Sec-
tion 104(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42
U.S.C. 9604(a)), as amended by section 301 and this sec-
tion, is further amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
‘‘(8) RESPONSE OPTION IDENTIFICATION.—(A) The
response option identification element of a long-term re-
mediation plan shall consist of the development of the
range of possible response actions for a facility and the
conduct of a cost-benefit analysis on each of the following
categories of possible response actions:
‘‘(i) Containment (both permanent and tem-
porary).
‘‘(ii) Remediation.
‘‘(iii) Monitoring.
‘‘(iv) Delisting.
‘‘(v) Institutional controls.
‘‘(B) The President, the State, or the other person
carrying out the identification shall take into account ad-
vice from the Community Advisory Council created for the
facility concerned.
‘‘(C) During the 30-day period occurring after com-
pletion of the response option identification, the Commu-
nity Advisory Council, potentially responsible parties, and
any other interested parties may submit comments to the
President or the State on preferred options.’’.
(2) COST-BENEFIT REGULATIONS.—Section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605) is
amended by adding at the end the following new sub-
section:
‘‘(h) COST-BENEFIT REGULATIONS.—(1) The Presi-
dent shall promulgate and include in the national contin-
gency plan guidelines for conducting cost/benefit analyses
of response actions conducted pursuant to this Act. The
guidelines shall include a standard methodology for evalu-
ating benefits and costs over the lifetime of a remedial
action.
‘‘(2) In developing the standard methodology under
paragraph (1), the President shall seek and take into ac-
count suggestions from States and political subdivisions
of States for which costs and benefits to include in a cost-
benefit analysis, and which methods to use in evaluating
the costs and benefits. The costs may include costs related
to public welfare.
‘‘(3) In developing the methodology for measuring the
costs of a remedial action, the President, at a minimum,
shall take into account the following costs:
‘‘(A) Costs associated with the remedial action,
including the following:
‘‘(i) Direct capital costs.
‘‘(ii) Operation and maintenance costs.
‘‘(iii) Preconstruction costs, including per-
mitting, siting, and regulatory compliance costs.
‘‘(iv) Capital acquisition, amortization, and
debt service costs.
‘‘(v) Consulting costs.
‘‘(vi) Costs and potential liabilities of fu-
ture environmental remediation if the remedial
action does not provide for a permanent rem-
edy.
‘‘(vii) Land acquisition costs.
‘‘(viii) Costs of insurance.
‘‘(B) Avoided or additional costs of cleaning up
the contamination using an alternative treatment
technology.
‘‘(4) In developing the methodology for measuring the
benefits of a remedial action, the President shall, at a min-
imum, take into account the costs of benefits associated
with the remedial action, including the following:
‘‘(A) Increased property values.
‘‘(B) Reduced public health risks.
‘‘(C) Reduced ecological risks.
‘‘(D) Improved environmental quality in the
community.’’.
SEC. 304. LONG-TERM RESPONSE SELECTION.
(a) LONG-TERM
RESPONSE
SELECTION.—Section
121(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9621(a)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(a) RESPONSE SELECTION.—
‘‘(1) SECTION
104.—After completion of the
long-term response plan for a facility under section
104, the President, or the State in the case of a fa-
cility for which a State has responsibility under sec-
tion 127, shall select that response or combination
of responses (from among the options identified in
the plan) that best achieves an acceptable level of re-
sidual risk reduction at the facility or site (referred
to as the ‘cleanup goal’), in accordance with the gen-
eral rules stated in subsection (b).
‘‘(2) SECTION 106.—With respect to actions de-
termined to be necessary by the President to be se-
cured under section 106, the President shall select
appropriate remedial actions that are in accordance
with this section and, to the extent practicable, the
national contingency plan, and which provide for
cost-effective response.
100
(b) GENERAL RULES FOR RESPONSE SELECTION.—
Section 121(b) of such Act is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(b) GENERAL RULES.—
‘‘(1) SELECTION PROCESS.—In selecting a re-
sponse action under this section, the President (or
State, as the case may be) shall review the long-term
response plan for the facility or site and consider
any recommendations submitted to it from the Com-
munity Advisory Council, the potentially responsible
parties, and the general public.
‘‘(2) FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED.—In select-
ing a response action, the President shall take into
account the following:
‘‘(A) Site-specific factors, including the
current and likely future uses of the land and
the ground water (including any designated
uses or institutional controls), the potential for
human exposure to contamination, the actual
risk to human health, and the degree and type
of contamination.
‘‘(B) The economic impact of the action on
the potentially responsible parties. In the case
of a potentially responsible party which is a mu-
nicipality or other subdivision of a State (in-
cluding municipalities that are owners or opera-
101
tors of landfills), the President shall take into
account the funding priorities of the commu-
nity.
‘‘(C) The costs and benefits of the re-
sponse options, as determined by cost-benefit
analysis under section 104(a)(8).
‘‘(3) TYPES OF RESPONSES THAT MAY BE SE-
LECTED.—The types of response actions that the
President (or State, as the case may be) may select
include the following:
‘‘(A) Monitoring.
‘‘(B) Containment or stabilization, if the
President or State finds that any of the follow-
ing conditions exist with respect to the facility
concerned:
‘‘(i) The risks to human health or the
environment are low.
‘‘(ii) The costs of other types of reme-
diation, including treatment, are extremely
high.
‘‘(iii) No proven technology exists for
achieving a permanent and significant de-
crease in the toxicity, mobility, or volume
of the hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant concerned that is propor-