903R92007
U.S. EPA legion III
Regional Center for Environmental
Information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
The ROAD To ROD
Tips for Remedial Project Managers
Working Together to Get There Faster
Jointly Prepared by:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Department of Defense
January 1992
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgment vii
I. Purpose 1
II. DoD Involvement at NPL Sites 5
III. The ROD Process 11
IV. Tips to Expedite the ROD Process 23
Conclusions 39
Available Resources 41
References 43
List of Acronyms 47
Appendix A. ROD Summary for DoD Sites 52
Appendix B. Summary of Key Requirements 58
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Characteristics of DoD Facilities 6
2. The Nine Evaluation Criteria for 13
Remedy Selection
LIST OF FIGURES
1. The Road to ROD: A Pyramid to Progress 3
2. Examples of Post-ROD Changes 20
3. Case Study of the ROD Process 24
4. Potential Reviewers 38
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The recommendations presented in this guide were developed by a work group of
representatives from EPA, DoD, and each of the DoD services. Through effective
communication and a Total Quality Management (TQM) approach to coordination
and analysis, this work group quickly researched opportunities for improving the
current ROD development procedures and for approving NPL site documents,
namely the PP and the ROD. The guide tries to keep a balanced perspective of the
demands and schedules placed on each of the participants in the ROD process, and
to look at the statutory and regulatory guidance as a road map for the process.
The guide was developed over a 7-month period with concentrated effort and
constant commitment from the following individuals:
EPA
• Harry Harbold, Technical Coordinator, Hazardous Waste Management
Division, EPA Region III
• Steve Hirsh, Remedial Project Manager, EPA Region III
• Seth Thomas Low, Chief, Virginia RCRA/CERCLA Remedial Section,
Office of Regional Counsel, EPA Region III
• Henry Sokolowski, Chief, Federal Facilities Superfund Program, EPA
Region III
• Kathryri Boyle, Environmental Scientist, Compliance Branch, Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement, EPA Headquarters
• Sherry Milan, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal
Facilities Enforcement, EPA Headquarters
DoD
• Vic Wieszek, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense ( Environment)
• Karl Kneeling, Environmental Restoration Program Manager, Department
of the Air Force, Office of the Civil Engineer, Environmental Directorate
• Rick Newsome, Assistant for Environmental Restoration, Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Environment, Safety, and
Occupational Health
• Dave Olson, Installation Restoration Program Manager, Office of the
Chief of Naval Operations
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
• Pamela Bellin, Project Manager
• Joe Knox, Project Manager
Many other people, in addition to the regular work group members, participated
in the development of this guide, and their efforts were greatly appreciated at every
ster
-------
-------
I. PURPOSE
This guide is designed to provide
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and Department of Defense
(DoD) Project Managers with an
overview of the Record of Decision
(ROD) process, and to identify
opportunities for expediting the
ROD process at DoD sites on the
National Priorities List (NPL). The
expertise that has been gained in
managing the first group of DoD
sites to go through the remedial
process under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) provides valuable
insights for Project Managers at
future sites. This document focuses
on one segment of the ROD process,
the period between completion of
the Feasibility Study (FS) and
signature of the ROD, and on
opportunities to minimize this time
period.
DoD sites requiring CERCLA
response present a formidable
management challenge. Project
Managers at EPA, DoD, and the
States face a large universe of DoD
sites on the NPL and the potential
for many additional RODs to be
completed during this decade.
Innovative approaches are needed
to expedite the ROD process.
It is important to examine the
lessons that have been learned
already in handling the complex
challenges at DoD sites and apply
these lessons to future NPL sites,
with the ultimate goal of reducing
potential risks to human health and
the environment. Project Managers
who have charted new courses and
directed the first DoD sites through
the ROD process have learned much
from which others can benefit. Their
COMPLEX SITES
A MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE
Waste Piles
-------
lessons are presented in this guide.
Appendix A summarizes the
identified threats and selected
remedies at a variety of DoD sites
for which RODs have been signed.
This list provides Project Managers
with EPA and DoD contacts who
can share insights as similar sites go
through the ROD process.
This guide is targeted to both new
and experienced Project Managers.
It provides new Project Managers
with a description of DoD's role in
CERCLA response actions at NPL
sites and a concise explanation of
the ROD process. It then provides
tips on improving and expediting
the ROD process, available
resources that can assist Project
Managers, and references others
have found valuable. The tips are
organized around the four
objectives highlighted in Figure 1.
Readers who are familiar with the
ROD process and the unique
challenges posed by DoD sites may
want to proceed immediately to
Chapter 4, "Tips to Expedite the
ROD Process." The discussions
throughout this guide focus on
experiences at DoD sites on the
NPL; however, these lessons
provide valuable insight that can
be applied to non-DoD and non-
NPL sites as well.
-------
Expediting Document
(, Preparation/Review/Approval
Feasibility Study
Remedial Investigation
Building Communication and Coordination
Improving the Planning Process
Understanding the Role of the Interagency Agreement (IAG)
Figure 1.
The Road to ROD: A Pyramid to Progress
-3-
-------
-------
II. DoD INVOLVEMENT AT NPL SITES
Implementation of environmental
protection programs at DoD sites
poses numerous challenges. The
Federal Government's commitment
to protect human health and the
environment and to become a model
for environmental compliance is
demonstrated by the large efforts
under way not only at CERCLA sites,
but also at the thousands of sites being
addressed by the Defense Environ-
mental Restoration Program (DERP).
In addition to the 95 DoD facility
listings on the NPL, DoD services are
investigating or addressing potential
risks at hundreds of sites. DoD and
EPA Project Managers can obtain a
broader picture of the number of DoD
facilities in the CERCLA pipeline and
progress already accomplished by
reading the "Defense Environmental
Restoration Program Annual Report to
Congress for Fiscal Year 1990,"
February 1991.
EPA and DoD Project Managers face
unique challenges, because environ-
mental priorities must be integrated
with the national security missions of
each DoD service, including the
Department of the Air Force, the
Department of the Army, the
Department of the Navy, and the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA).
National security is paramount,
however, it is also important for the
Federal Government to present a
unified picture to the public of a
government committed to
environmental protection and
restoration at its own facilities to at
least the same extent that it is
committed to environmental pro-
tection at private sites. (Private sites
here are defined as all non-DoD and
non-Federal facility NPL sites.) To
achieve this result, EPA and DoD
must work closely to identify
workable solutions for integrating
environmental protection priorities
with DoD missions.
This section describes some of the
unique characteristics of DoD sites
and the pertinent environmental regu-
lations that govern their operations.
Major issues confronting EPA, DoD,
and State Project Managers are high-
lighted.
II.l Characteristics of DoD
Facilities
Several key differences exist between
DoD and private industry operations
that make remediation of DoD
facilities unique. These dissimilarities
include the size of the facility, the
-------
number of operable units,1 and the
types of industrial processes in which
DoD is engaged. DoD sites on the
NPL range in size from a few acres
to tens of thousands of acres and
frequently contain multiple
contaminated areas. DoD sites on
the NPL presently have from 1 to as
many as 25 operable units.
Many of the problems existing at pri-
vately owned sites on the NPL also
occur at DoD facilities. DoD facili-
ties often have many wastes in com-
mon with private sites, but face a
cleanup challenge due to the large
quantity and variety of wastes. In
addition, military-unique compounds
such as pyrotechnics, explosives, and
propellants are atypical of private in-
dustry and require special remedial in-
vestigative procedures and responses.
Table 1 provides an overview of DoD
facility characteristics.
AN OPERABLE UNIT, as
defined in the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) (40
CFR 300.5), is "a discrete action
that comprises an incremental
step toward comprehensively
addressing site problems. This
discrete portion of a remedial
response manages migration, or
eliminates or mitigates a release,
threat of a release, or pathway of
exposure. The cleanup of a site
can be divided into a number of
operable units, depending on the
complexity of the problems
associated with the site. Operable
units may address geographical
portions of a site, specific site
problems, or initial phases of an
action, or may consist of any set
of actions performed over time or
any actions that are concurrent
but located in different parts of
a site."
Military Activities
• Explosive ordnance
production and disposal
• Demilitarization
• Ammunition plants
• Weapons systems
development, testing,
and evaluation
• Shipbuilding
• Large industrial
processes
• Training (land, sea,
and air)
t
Unique Military Wastes
• Exotic fuels
• Explosive
compounds (TNT,
DNT, etc )
• Military chemicals
(mustard gas, white
phosphorus, Agent
Orange, etc.)
• Mixed waste
(low-level radiation
and hazardous waste)
'•;
Large Quantity and
Varied Wastes
• Benzene • Arsenic
• Toluene • Zinc
• Xylene • Mercury
• Lead • Acetone
• Trichloroethylene
• Tetrachloroethylene
• Ethyl benzene
• Chloroform
• Chromium (III)
• Methyl chloride
Table 1.
Characteristics of DoD Facilities
-------
II.2 Statutory and Regulatory
Framework
The number of DoD facilities to be
investigated, the size of these facilities,
and their types and sources of
contamination combine to create a
clear challenge in ensuring DoD
compliance with hazardous waste
laws. This challenge is heightened by
the potential at each site for
overlapping jurisdictions among
Federal agency programs, State
programs, and multiple statutes.
Overlapping Jurisdictions and
Programs
DoD facilities are subject to the
requirements of other regulatory
environmental laws and programs in
addition to CERCLA, such as the
National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program
under the Clean Water Act (CWA),
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Most
CERCLA response activities at these
facilities are the result of a release or
threat of release of hazardous
substances from hazardous materials
and waste management practices that
occurred before enactment of these
statutes or that violate their
requirements.
Hazardous waste management
activities at DoD facilities can
encompass a wide range of practices
and are dependent on the individual
type of facility and its function.
Because DoD facilities are usually
large operations that treat, store, and
dispose of hazardous wastes, situations
may arise where solid waste
management units are subject to RCRA
Subtitle C regulations (management,
closure, or Corrective Action)
concurrent with a CERCLA response
activity (non-RCRA hazardous waste
activity).
Project Managers should be aware of
the need to satisfy multiple statutory
requirements concurrently. For
example, CERCLA/RCRA interface
issues at NPL sites are addressed in a
site-specific Interagency Agreement
(IAG), also called a Federal Facility
Agreement (FFA), before initiating a
Remedial Investigation (RI).
-7-
-------
THE ROD: THE LINK TO CLEANUP
Pre - ROD
Post - ROD
• Site Discovery
• Preliminary
Assessment/ Site
Investigation
• National Priority
List
Remedial
Investigation/
Feasibility
Study
• Remedial Design
• Remedial Action
• Operation and
Maintenance
-------
• Documentation of the selected
remedy in a ROD, with all the
facts and analyses supporting this
preference.
Project Managers are responsible for
developing these documents and
guiding the remedy selection pro-
cess. In this role, they are the keys to
careful planning, time management,
coordination, and document prepa-
ration. They are the ones who de-
velop schedules and can take inno-
vative approaches to expedite the
ROD process.
Throughout the remedy selection
process, States may provide support
to EPA and DoD. In this role, the
designated lead agency within the
State for CERCLA activities
provides a single point of contact for
communication and oversees State
involvement in the review of
documents or data.
Early in the process, EPA and DoD
Project Managers should assess
carefully what is needed to complete
the three steps identified above
(presenting the PP, selecting the
remedy, and preparing the ROD)
and should begin thinking about
how a dedicated team can proceed
effectively and efficiently through
the steps. These next two sections of
this guide provide detailed informa-
tion on the PP and ROD, and the
following chapter describes specific
opportunities for improving the
overall ROD process.
III.l The Importance of the
Proposed Plan
The PP identifies and explains the
rationale for the preferred remedial
alternative and addresses the
threats to human health and the
environment at the site or operable
unit. It must describe all remedial
alternatives that were evaluated,
explain the nine criteria used to
evaluate and compare the
alternatives, provide the rationale
for the preferred alternative, and
solicit public review and comment
on all alternatives presented.
The evaluation criteria are the
standards by which all the
alternatives are assessed and are the
basis of the remedy selection
process. They can be separated into
three levels: threshold, balancing,
and modifying criteria, which must
be considered in this order.
Threshold criteria must be evaluated
first and are strict requirements for
the remedy selection process. In
considering balancing criteria, and
then modifying criteria, there is
slightly more subjectivity and
flexibility. Table 2 briefly describes
each of the nine evaluation criteria.
-------
III. THE ROD PROCESS
Signing the ROD is the stepping-
stone between identifying and
assessing CERCLA sites and
beginning on-site remedial activities.
It is the critical link between site
identification and cleanup.
Although removal actions can occur
at any point during the CERCLA
process, this guide focuses solely on
remedial activities. Additional
information on removal actions can
be found in Section 300.415 of the
NCP.
The purpose of the remedy selection
process is to choose remedies that
eliminate, reduce, or control risks.
With the potential for hundreds of
additional RODs at DoD facilities in
the next few years, expediting the
ROD process can mean earlier
reductions in risk to human health
and the environment. EPA and DoD
Project Managers overseeing the
remedy selection process for these
sites are at the core of decision
making and can have tremendous
influence over environmental
restoration and cleanup decisions at
these sites. Project Managers must
always be alert to opportunities for
taking early action where
appropriate to contain, treat, or
remove wastes and reduce risk to
human health and the environment.
EPA's and DoD's goal for the
remedy selection process is to select
remedies that protect human health
and the environment, maintain
protection over time, and minimize
untreated waste. OnceanRI/FShas
been completed, the site
characteristics should be known and
a range of remedial alternatives
should be identified. At DoD
facilities, selection of the remedy
progresses with the following steps:
• Presentation of a summary of the
information and analyses that
support the proposed decision in
a Proposed Plan (PP) for public
comment. Through announce-
ments in local newspapers and
open communication with the
public, EPA and DoD must estab-
lish at least a 30-day period for
public comments.
Proposed Plan
1 Joint selection of the remedy by
EPA and DoD. (In cases of
disagreement, EPA is ultimately
responsible for the remedy
selection.)
DoD
EPA
-11-
-------
-criteria,art requirements thai each
alternative imastmeet In order to fee eligible for
selection;;."- ",' : -,;..' ' , '; .'
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment. Addresses whether a remedy
provides adequate protection of human health and
the environment from unacceptable risks posed
by hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants present at the site by eliminating,
reducing, or controlling exposures through
treatment, engineering, or institutional controls.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).
Addresses whether the alternative attains all
ARARs under Federal environmental laws or State
environment or facility-siting laws or provides the
grounds for invoking one of the six ARAR waivers
stated in the NCP.
The
NCP
Table 2.
The Nine Evaluation Criteria for Remedy Selection
1 Criteria are established in Section 300.430(e)(9)(iii) and 300.430(f)
of the NCP.
-------
BALANCING criteria are factors with
trade-offs between alternatives are assessed so
that the best option will be; chosen, giiren site-
specific data and conditions, \
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence.
Refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the
environment over time, once remedial action goals
have been met. Permanence for this criterion is
viewed along a continuum, and an alternative can
be described as offering a greater or lesser degree
of permanence.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
(IMV) Through Treatment. Assesses the relative
performance of recycling or treatment tech-
nologies on the TMV of contaminants.
Short-term Effectiveness. Addresses the ad-
verse impacts on human health and the environ-
ment that may be posed in the time it takes to
implement the remedy and achieve the
remediation goals.
Implementability. Looks at the technical and
administrative feasibility of the remedy, includ-
ing the availability of materials and services
needed to implement each component of the
option in question.
Cost. Includes estimated capital and operation
and maintenance costs, and net present value of
capital and operation and maintenance costs.
Table 2. (continued)
The Nine Evaluation Criteria for Remedy Selection '
1 Criteria are established in Section 300.430(e)(9)(iii) and 300.430(0
of the NCP.
-14-
-------
State Acceptance. Addresses the State
comments and concerns for each potential
remedy. Indicates whether the State concurs with
the preferred or the selected remedy in the PP or
the ROD.
Community Acceptance. Summarizes the
public's general response to the alternatives
described in the PP or the FS.
Table 2. (continued)
The Nine Evaluation Criteria for Remedy Selection '
1 Criteria are established in Section 300.430(e)(9)(iii) and 300.430(f)
of the NCP.
-15-
-------
The PP is intended to facilitate
public participation in the remedy
selection process and satisfies the
CERCLA requirements concerning
public participation. The PP can be
written in a fact-sheet format or an
expanded format. The fact-sheet
format is usually 10 to 15 pages
although a longer PP may be
necessary, depending on the specific
site conditions. Circumstances that
may warrant an expanded format
include technically complex issues,
multiple operable units that are
being remediated at the same time,
or a high level of community
concern. The PP is probably the
most effective method of written
communication targeted to the
public, because the average citizen
is more likely to read a fact sheet
summary of the site.
The process for developing the PP
and its basic requirements are
established in CERCLA as follows:
• Section 113(k)(2)(B) establishes
minimum procedures for public
involvement in the remedy
selection process. These pro-
cedures include notice to the
public, accompanied by a brief
analysis of all the alternatives that
were considered, and a
reasonable opportunity to
comment.
• Section 117(a) requires the lead
agency to publish a notice and
brief analysis of the PP and to make
it available to the public. In
addition, it requires that an
opportunity for a public meeting
at or near the facility be provided,
and that a transcript of the meeting
be made available to the public.
• Section 121(f)(l)(G) provides the
requirements for State involve-
ment in the remedial decision
process, including notice to the
State and an opportunity to
comment on the PP. (See also
' Section 120(0).
The PP should be written in a clear
and concise manner. Use of technical
jargon and administrative
nomenclature should be kept to a
minimum to make it understandable
to the general public. The PP is a
public participation document, not
a technical or legal document. The
information presented in this
document is intended to inform and
educate the local community on past
and future activities at the site. The
document (and subsequent public
meeting) should emphasize that
community acceptance is one
criterion in selecting the remedy and
that a final decision is pending,
awaiting public input.
-------
The period required for public com-
ment on the PP is a constraint that
the Project Manager should antici-
pate. The EPA Project Manager
should plan on releasing the PP to
the public 12 weeks before the date
targeted in the EPA Superfund Com-
prehensive Accomplishments Plan
(SCAP) for ROD signature to allow
time for a 30-day comment period,
as required by the NCP. Time-
frames and requirements for public
comment periods are established in
Section 300.430(f)(3)(C) of the NCP
and are beyond the Project
Manager's control.
Wednesday
July
8
12 Meets to ROD///
Although the NCP requires a mini-
mum of 30 calendar days for public
comment on the PP, Project Manag-
ers should review the site-specific
timeframes set forth in the FFA,
since many agreements provide for
a 45-day public comment period.
In addition, if a timely request is
submitted to extend the public com-
ment period, the lead agency must
provide a minimum of 30 additional
days. As a result, this period can
last from a minimum of 30 days to
more than 75 days, which the Project
Manager must take into account in
planning. When the PP is issued,
the public comment period officially
begins. After the close of the com-
ment period, the Responsiveness
Summary is prepared describing the
comments and how they have been
addressed. During the public com-
ment period, the lead agency must
provide the opportunity for a pub-
lic meeting at or near the site to
discuss the PP and supporting
analyses.
Q
III.2 The Importance of the
Record of Decision
The purpose of the ROD is to docu-
ment the remedy selected by DoD
and EPA, provide a rationale for the
selected remedy, and establish per-
formance standards or goals for the
site or the operable unit under con-
sideration. The ROD provides a
plan for site design and remediation,
and documents the extent of human
health or environmental risks posed
by the site or operable unit. It also
-------
serves as legal certification that the
remedy was selected in accordance
with the requirements of CERCLA
and the NCP. The ROD is one of the
most important documents in the
remedy selection process, because it
documents all activities prior to the
selection of remedy and provides a
conceptual plan for all activities sub-
sequent to the ROD.
The ROD consists of three basic
components: the Declaration, the
Decision Summary, and the
Responsiveness Summary, which
are described below:
• The Declaration is an abstract
of the key information contained
in the Decision Summary. This
section is signed by the EPA
Regional Administrator and the
designated representative on
behalf of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Production and
Logistics; once signed, this
section makes the entire ROD
legally binding.
• The Decision Summary is the
core of the document and de-
scribes the site characteristics,
the risks posed by the site, the
remedial alternatives evaluated
to mitigate those risks, the se-
lected remedy and rationale for
selection, and the performance
goals of the remedy.
• The Responsiveness Summary
addresses all significant ques-
tions and comments received
from the public during the des-
ignated comment period.
Similar to the PP, the contents of the
ROD are governed by CERCLA.
Section 113(k)(2)(B)(v) of CERCLA
requires a statement of "basis and
purpose" for the selected remedy at
a site. Section 117(b) requires that a
notice of the final ROD be published
and made available to the public in
the Administrative Record (as
provided for in the NCP) before
commencing the remedial action.
The ROD must document any
significant changes from the PP and
a response to all comments, written
and oral, that were received during
the public comment period. The
ROD is signed after closure of the
public comment period and once all
significant comments or issues are
addressed.
If public comments result in changes
to the remedy, the changes should
be clearly documented in the section
of the ROD describing significant
changes from the PP. If a funda-
mental change to the remedy is
made between the PP and the ROD
(such as changing a treatment
remedy to a containment remedy),
then an amended PP should be
issued and a new public comment
period must be opened.
-18-
-------
III.3 Post-ROD Changes
After the ROD is signed, new
information may come to light that
may alter the effectiveness, extent,
or implementation of the remedial
action. Three types of changes may
occur:
• Non-significant or minor
• Significant
• Fundamental.
Examples of these three types of
post-ROD changes are presented in
Figure 2. EPA guidance on
addressing pre- and post-ROD
changes is contained in the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) Publication
9355.3-02FS-4 (April 1991).
How big a
change ?
Non-significant changes are
characterized as minor changes that
do not overly affect the scope or the
objectives of the selected remedy.
Non-significant changes generally
do not need formal documentation
and approval. They should be noted
in the post-decision document file.
Non-significant changes can also be
documented in an optional Remedial
Design Fact Sheet.
A significant change does not modify
the overall remedy but could alter a
component of the remedy. If a
significant change to a component
of the remedy is needed, then an
Explanation of Significant
Differences (BSD) must be
developed, approved, and released
to the public in accordance with
Section 300.435(c)(2)(i) of the NCP.
A formal public comment period
and Responsiveness Summary are
not required but may be initiated at
the discretion of both EPA and DoD.
It may also be appropriate to prepare
an BSD document when DoD and
EPA decide to use a contingency
remedy that was not fully described
in the ROD.
An BSD document contains the
following:
• Introduction, describing the
circumstances that gave rise to
the change
• Summary of the site history and
the selected remedy
-19-
-------
1. Minor. Testing during Remedial Design shows that the volume of
soil requiring treatment is 75,000 cubic yards (yd3) rather than the
60,000 yd3 estimated in the ROD. However, the cost of the remedy
will only increase by 5 percent because of economies of scale that can
be realized.
2. Significant. Residuals from a treatment operation were not expected
to be hazardous and it was planned to dispose of them on site in a
Subtitle D unit. However, testing after treatment determines that the
residuals are hazardous wastes, and off-site disposal at a Subtitle C
facility is required.
3. Fundamental. The in-situ soil washing remedy selected in the ROD
proves to be infeasible to implement after testing during Remedial
Design. A decision is made to excavate and thermally treat the waste
instead.
The Project Manager should consider these categories as guidance.
The appropriate approach to responding to post-ROD changes is
decided by EPA and DoD based on site-specific circumstances and
discussion.
Figure 2.
Examples of Post-ROD Changes
• Description of the significant
differences and the basis for those
differences
• Affirmation of the statutory
determinations
• Public participation activities.
The ESD document should receive
the same concurrences and approval
as the ROD.
subsequent to the ROD is con-
sidered a fundamental change to
the remedy and requires a ROD
Amendment. When such funda-
mental changes are made to a
remedy, a repetition of the ROD
process, including issuance of a
revised PP and a new public
comment period, is necessary, in
accordance with the requirements
of Section 117 of CERCLA and
Section 300.435(c)(2)(ii) of the NCP.
At the other end of the spectrum, a
reconsideration of the hazardous
waste management approach
An amended ROD looks very similar
to an initial ROD and should include
a Responsiveness Summary;
-20-
-------
however, the introductory sections The NCP provides the policies for
(such as the site history, community the remedy selection process under
relations, and site risks) do not need CERCLA. Interim Final Guidance is
to be readdressed. Rather, the focus available on developing the PP and
of the discussion should be on the ROD in a document titled "Guidance
rationale for the ROD Amendment, on Preparing Superfund Decision
evaluating the alternatives in terms Documents" (July 1989). Additional
of the nine criteria, and providing information can be found in the
assurances that the new proposed quick-reference fact sheet entitled
remedy satisfies the statutory "Guide to Addressing Pre-ROD and
requirements. Post-ROD Changes" (April 1991).
-21-
-------
ROD
/ Proposed Plan \
f Expediting Document A
/ Preparation/Review/Approval \
/ Feasibility Study \
/ Remedial Investigation \
/ Building Communication and CoordinationX
/ Improving the Planning Process \
/ Understanding the Role of the Interagency Agreement (IAG) \
GETTING TO THE ROD AT DOD FACILITIES
-22-
-------
IV. TIPS TO EXPEDITE THE ROD PROCESS
This chapter identifies specific
opportunities and methods to
streamline the ROD process at DoD
facilities. Throughout, special
attention is given to how potential
modifications to the ROD process
at DoD facilities apply to each
participant (EPA, DoD, other
agencies, the State) and to
milestones in the process (the PP
and ROD). When possible, it
includes references to actual case
studies where changes to the
process have been successful.
Figure 3 presents a sample case
study in which many of the tips
described in this guide were
applied and a ROD was prepared
and signed within six months of
the FS completion.
Although many opportunities ex-
ist to streamline the ROD process,
they center around four objectives
for the ROD process, which include
the following:
• Understanding the role of the
Interagency Agreement (IAG)
• Improving the planning process
• Building communication and
coordination
• Expediting document prep-
aration, and review and
approval.
The steps that Project Managers can
take to achieve each of these objec-
tives are presented in the follow-
ing sections.
This Way to
ROD
IV.l
Understanding the Role
of the IAG
Section 120(e)(2) of CERCLA
requires DoD services to enter into
an IAG with EPA for "the expedi-
tious completion" of all necessary
remedial actions at facilities on the
NPL. Although CERCLA requires
an IAG to be signed within 180
days of the completion of the RI/
FS, EPA, DoD, and other Federal
agencies have agreed that it is more
appropriate to enter into an IAG
before beginning the RI/FS. This
way, all parties agree up front
about the scope, timeframe, and
approach for the RI/FS, and go
-23-
-------
CASE STUDY
The following is an actual case study of how a ROD was prepared and signed in
less than six months from the completion of the FS. The name of the actual
facility is not presented, but all dates and activities are accurate.
Feb. 14, 1991 EPA, the facility, and the State had a meeting to form a
work group and find ways to expedite cleanup consistent
with the existing FFA. The group focused on measures to
streamline the process and eliminate unnecessary delay. The
group agreed to work toward completing the ROD by
June 30, 1991, versus the original scheduled date of
October 1991.
Feb. 25, 1991 The facility provided a copy of its draft ROD to EPA.
Feb. 28, 1991 Both EPA and the State provided comments on the Draft
Final FS and reported early, rather than waiting for the full
30-business-day review period to expire. These actions
allowed the FS Report to become final 10 days early.
Mar. 10, 1991 EPA reviewed the draft ROD and provided a revised ver-
sion to the facility.
Mar. 22, 1991 Joint meeting between EPA, the facility, and the State was
held over several days to prepare a version of the ROD and
PP that was acceptable to all parties. Parties literally worked
out differences in one room and eliminated review times.
Meeting also enabled resolution of State ARAR issues.
Apr. 25, 1991 Public comment period for the Proposed Plan began.
May 8, 1991 Public hearing for the Proposed Plan was held.
Jun. 10, 1991 Public comment period ended, and Responsiveness
Summary was prepared.
Jun. 15, 1991 ROD was prepared for final Headquarters and State review
and signature.
Jun. 26, 1991 ROD was signed by all parties.
Figure 3.
Case Study of the ROD Process
-------
through the process together
thereby reducing the chance of
disagreements about the remedy or
the data used to support the
remedy selection. The agencies
have also agreed to call the IAG a
"CERCLA Federal Facility
Agreement (FFA)."
Although the FFA is primarily a
legal document, Project Managers
often rely on the FFA as a plan-
ning document to initiate and con-
trol the progress of the RI/FS.
Project Managers should remem-
ber that the FFA usually is not tai-
lored very specifically to the site,
but rather identifies the maximum
timeframes for site activities. An
FFA frequently incorporates model
language on such items as turn-
around times for comment periods,
extensions of comment periods,
and dispute resolution.
In many cases, EPA and DoD
Project Managers have assumed
the maximum times for review and
comment on provisions of the PP
and ROD, and in some cases they
have assumed that dispute resolu-
tion procedures would be invoked.
Instead, Project Managers should
seek to identify site-specific oppor-
tunities to streamline the process
and to minimize review times.
"The Model Provisions for CERCLA
Federal Facility Agreements" (June
1988)1 identifies the ROD as a
primary document that is critical to
the RI/FS and RD/RA processes.
Consequently, the ROD is subject
to the provisions for comment
periods, extensions, and other
provisions of the review and
comment process. The legal
language contained in the FFA that
establishes maximum timeframes
is necessary, particularly if
problems develop, but Project
Managers should take a positive
approach to planning schedules and
not immediately build in time for
extensions and disputes. Project
Managers should view the FFA as
a legal framework and benchmark
for operations and then consider
ways to streamline the process with
aggressive submittal and review
times.
FFA Establishes
Maximum
Timeframes
The following sections of this guide
focus on opportunities and meth-
ods to streamline the process of
completing the PP and ROD.
Porter, J. Winston, Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Memorandum
to Regional Administrator. Agreement
with the Department of Defense —
Model Provisions for CERCLA Federal
Facility Agreements, June 17, 1988.
-------
Project Managers should also con-
sider incorporating many of the
opportunities and methods de-
scribed below into the FFA during
FFA negotiations. Reviewing these
opportunities will focus the atten-
tion of Project Managers on the
task of streamlining the process
and identifying additional oppor-
tunities for planning meetings to
accelerate progress through joint
document preparation, and con-
current ROD review.
IV.2 Improving the Planning
Process
* TWn^ attend, anticipate needs,
; , - and; " "
Planning may be the most impor-
tant factor for timely completion
of the ROD at Federal facilities.
Effective planning is conducted
early, monitored often, and
focused on elements of the process
that can critically affect progress.
Planning can and should begin
even before the FFA is developed
and signed. Project Managers can
improve their planning by focus-
ing on the following issues:
• Early scoping of the RI/FS
• Early identification of ARARs
and To Be Considered (TBC)
requirements
• Early and accurate updates of
targets tracked in EPA's SCAP
and annual planning for
remedial actions within DoD
• Sufficient time to circulate the PP
to the public and for internal and
external review
• Plans for contractor support
• Identification of training needs
• Use of project management
tools.
Tips in each of these areas are
described in the following sections.
IV.2.1 Early Scoping of the
RI/FS
* Assess the site and the risk,
Scoping is a thorough planning
process for Project Managers that
requires them to look at their site
and determine its overall level of
complexity before work begins.
Scoping involves an early assess-
ment of the number of migration
pathways at the site, the most
imminent threats to human health
and the environment, and the
projected cost of actions needed at
the site. The scoping process is
described in more detail in EPA's
publication, "Scoper's Notes"
(February 1990). EPA has
emphasized early scoping of the
RI/FS for all sites, private and
Federal. The purpose of scoping is
-26-
-------
to help ensure that important site-
specific aspects of the RI/FS are
identified before work begins at the
site.
During this early scoping of the
site, the Project Manager should
also look ahead to potential
remedial actions that may be
appropriate at the site. This is an
important juncture at which the
Project Manager should take the
following actions:
• Contact EPA and DoD Project
Managers for similar sites to
discuss remedies that were
effective
• Review guidance that identifies
ways to streamline remediation,
such as EPA's "Guidance on
Remedial Actions for Superfund
Sites with PCB Contamination"
(August 1990) and "Conducting
RI/FS for CERCLA Municipal
Landfill Sites" (February 1991)
• Plan for a treatability study, if
one is needed
• Identify an early action or an
interim remedial measure (IRM)
for the site.
In ways such as these, proper
scoping will help to expedite the
ROD process and can minimize risk
to human health and the
environment.
IV.2.2 Early Identification of
ARARs and TBCs
"' . , saves- time 'aaul eneig^;--:: ''-;".
c~ Stair
• • in -.writ ipg. •„
If all ARARs are not met by the
preferred alternative, the ROD may
be seriously delayed while the
Project Managers conduct addi-
tional site investigation activities to
meet particular ARARs. Such
delays can be avoided by identify-
ing all ARARs before beginning to
draft the ROD.
Project Managers should develop
a list of ARARs by asking the State
and other agencies involved with
the site to submit a list of their
ARARs. To anticipate these
requirements, Project Managers
can examine existing RODs for
similar sites in the same State and
identify which ARARs are likely
All ARARs
the first
time
around.
WANTED
-27-
-------
to apply. Appendix A contains a
summary of RODs at DoD sites
that provides a starting point to
identify similar sites; Project
Managers can identify additional
sites through use of the Records of
Decision System (RODS) database
that is described in Appendix A.
Project Managers should also refer
to EPA's guidance contained in
"CERCLA Compliance with Other
Laws Manual: Parts I and II"
(August 1989). By requesting
specific State ARARs in writing as
early as possible, reviewing RODs
for similar sites, and referring to
existing guidance, Project
Managers can minimize the chance
of surprises later in the process,
and the need to address ARARs
that could have been considered
earlier.
Before releasing the PP, Project
Managers should re-examine
ARARs for the site to ensure that
new requirements have not come
into effect. ARARs are "frozen" at
ROD signature. Changing an
ARAR requires a ROD amendment
or an BSD as described in
Section III.3 of this guide. As part
of the ROD process, ARARs that
are in existence at the time the ROD
is signed may be waived in
situations consistent with the
requirements of the NCP (40 CFR
300.430(f)(l)(ii)(c)). Therefore,
Project Managers must consider all
statutory and regulatory changes
that can affect the ARARs for the
site until the ROD is signed.
IV.2.3 Early and Accurate
Updates of Targets
Tracked in the SCAP
» Coordinate' in setting and:
' ' "
The SCAP is EPA's primary
planning tool for setting targets
and measuring progress for the
CERCLA program. The SCAP is a
computerized database that tracks
the dates for accomplishments
(milestones) at each CERCLA site
from discovery through operation
of the remedy, and is used for both
forecasting and reporting. SCAP
reports are typically given to upper
management within EPA, and data
are used in reports to Congress.
The data also provide input to
funding decisions for specific sites.
Since the SCAP tracks planned, as
well as actual, accomplishments,
DoD and EPA Project Managers
should agree on the planned dates
for their sites. By agreeing on these
dates in advance of the site work
and providing accurate updates as
work progresses, Project Managers
can avoid pressures to meet unre-
alistic targets. Similarly, by shar-
ing these dates with each other,
-28-
-------
A
Project Managers can ensure that
DoD's planning systems (such as
the Army's Fiscal Year (FY) Work
Plan) and the SCAP are consistent.
Updates to these systems occur at
different times of the year for EPA
and the DoD services. Both groups
should be alert to these dates and
coordinate accordingly.
IV.2.4 Sufficient Time to
Circulate the PP
• Plan on 12 weeks between
issuing the PP and the ROD.
• Account carefully for comment
periods in setting a target date
for the ROD.
Project Managers need to carefully
map a schedule of milestones to
the ROD and to account for a
potentially lengthy public com-
ment period in response to the PP.
As the Project Managers set target
dates for the ROD with their
management, Project Managers
should estimate approximately 12
weeks for these activities. The
NCP requires that EPA provide
the opportunity for a public
meeting to be held during the
public comment period, and
generally one is held and must be
planned. Project Managers should
also ensure internal and external
coordination in developing the PP
for release to the public to facilitate
its completion. Section III.l, "The
Importance of the Proposed Plan,"
of this guide describes many of the
regulatory requirements that
govern activities during this time.
IV.2.5 Plans for Contractor
Support
« Delegate and direct.
Project Managers should evaluate
their support needs, scope of work,
and contract options well in
advance of site work. All the work
to be performed must be within the
scope of work for the contract and
needs to be clearly identified early
in the process to ensure a smooth
procurement process.
Contractors can provide a wide
range of support to the ROD pro-
cess. For example, they can pro-
vide support in the following tasks:
• Prepare draft site plans
• Perform on-site activities (for
example, set up and maintain
Administrative Records)
-29-
-------
• Review site reports
• Assist in overseeing site
progress
• Assist in community relations
initiatives
• Arrange meetings
• Assist in preparation of
preliminary drafts of the PP and
ROD.
To obtain support, Project
Managers need to define their
needs clearly, identify procure-
ment options, and monitor
progress carefully. Project
Managers should check with their
local contracting office in pre-
paring a specific scope of work to
ensure that it is consistent with
appropriate contracting activities.
IV.2.6 Identification of
Training Needs
» Stay alert to changing require-
ments through training.
• Investigate training opportuni-
ties early in the year.
Many internal training courses are
offered by EPA and DoD, as well
as commercially, that can help
ensure a more timely RI/FS and
ROD. Examples include the
courses offered through the EPA
CERCLA Education Center
implemented by EPA's Technology
Innovation Office (TIO), and
commercial courses on technical
issues such as boreholes and
monitoring well installation.
Project Managers can obtain details
on available courses from TIO at
(703) 308-8800 and the Superfund
University Training Institutes,
Executive Director, Bruce Potoka,
(513) 569-7537.
Project Managers should note that
each year EPA conducts a ROD
Forum in every Region, usually in
April or May. This Forum is
intended to provide training on the
proper contents of RODs and to
improve their overall quality. The
ROD Forum can keep Project
Managers posted on new language
that is required in RODs; ROD
checklists; and national and
Regional trends, such as utilizing
interim action and no action RODs.
For example, the EPA 1991 ROD
Forum (which analyzed 1990
RODs) provided participants with
the following:
• A comprehensive analysis of the
ROD universe, Regional com-
parisons, and recommendations
for improving the ROD process
-30-
-------
• An overview of risk assessment
issues and approaches
• An update on regulatory
requirements, such as RCRA
Land Disposal Restrictions
• A summary of key terms and
definitions
• A sample ROD
• Checklists for preparing RODs,
including interim source actions,
final source actions, interim
groundwater actions, final
groundwater actions, and no
action RODs
• Numerous fact sheets on the
Superfund and ROD processes.
In addition to the organized
training, ROD Forums provide a
valuable opportunity to interact
with other Project Managers, hear
their stories, and learn from their
experiences. For all of these
reasons, EPA Project Managers
should contact the ROD Forum
Coordinator in their Region early
in the calendar year and make a
concerted effort to participate in
these sessions if possible. DoD
Project Managers should contact
the EPA Project Manager for
information on these training
opportunities.
IV.2.7 Use of Project
Management Tools
Project management tools, such as
computer scheduling and tracking
systems, can make it easier for
Project Managers to monitor major
milestones. Available software can
vary among offices, but both off-
the-shelf and customized systems
designed to project specifications
exist. EPA and DoD Project Man-
agers should identify the software
available in their respective offices
and coordinate early in the plan-
ning process on the use of compat-
ible project management tools.
One software package used by EPA
is Milestone. Ideally, Project Man-
agers would use the same software
and share computer diskettes con-
taining updates through the mail.
-31-
-------
A
IV.3 Building Communica-
tion and Coordination
• Good communication
pramot%$N«e££e$tive working
relationships.
The FFA provides a foundation,
and effective planning identifies
the path for developing a ROD.
Getting there efficiently demands
good communication and
coordination to ensure effective
working relationships.
DoD and EPA Project Managers
need to prepare and organize
individually, but equally impor-
tant, they continually need to work
with each other toward their
common goal of signing the ROD.
Project Managers can communicate
and coordinate effectively by
viewing the ROD process as a team
effort, frequently contacting other
team members, coordinating
closely with other agencies, and
using the Technical Review
Committee as a communication
tool. These four opportunities to
improve communication and
coordination are described in the
following sections.
IV.3.1 A Team Approach
Abroach &% ROD as one team
,6rte/goaL •; ' - ;:
members committed to a common
goal: a high-quality, signed ROD.
For each ROD, EPA and DoD
Project Managers should take a
fresh approach, realizing that both
are committed to the process and
are not adversaries. Constraints
and goals of the individual
organizations are now the
constraints and goals of the whole
team.
DoD and EPA Project Managers
should approach the RI/FS as team
A team approach can also enhance
the public's perception of the
project. The public is eager to see
progress made and potential risks
evaluated. The public holds the
Federal Government responsible
and wants to see a commitment to
environmental restoration in its
neighborhoods. A unified
approach can enhance the public's
perception of the process and can
defuse further public concerns.
IV.3.2 Frequent Contact and
Face-to-Face Meetings
• Talk first, type second,
Project Managers should maintain
frequent contact regarding site
progress and meet as often as
possible throughout the course of
the RI/FS, particularly while
preparing the ROD. Frequent
-32-
-------
A
contact reinforces a team approach,
makes it easier to identify concerns,
and facilitates conversations that
can lead to solutions.
Letters and lengthy memoranda
are better suited to documenting
issues or following up on action
items. They are not substitutes for
telephone calls and meetings,
where questions can often be
answered promptly. Project
Managers should consider
scheduling a biweekly conference
call and a monthly meeting held
in alternating locations to foster
interaction, communication, and
good working relationships.
During the period in which the PP
and ROD are being prepared, even
more frequent communication can
be beneficial.
IV.3.3 Coordination With Other
Agencies
* Consider and coordinate,, with
* reviewers'I
Letters to confirm discussions
sf oft ttfe
,- cm ««« dWdtioit
Good communication is just as
valuable among agencies as among
Project Managers. Project Managers
will find that their jobs are easier
when information flows quickly
and smoothly. A few minutes of
communicating can save hours of
clarifying misunderstandings or
coping with surprises. To this end,
Project Managers should identify
the critical parties and specific
contacts involved in their site in
each agency early in the ROD
process.
EPA and DoD Project Managers
may find that sharing these
responsibilities is more efficient.
The DoD Project Manager should
identify the appropriate agencies
and contacts within the service
responsible for the site, such as
those at the U.S. Army Toxic and
Hazardous Materials Agency
(USATHAMA), the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NAVFAC-
ENGCOM), or the Air Force Major
Command (MAJCOM). The NCP
requires each State to designate a
single agency as the point of
-------
contact, which is the lead agency
within the State for Superfund
activities.
If there are potential threats to
natural resources at the site or
migrating off site, the DoD and
EPA Project Managers should
notify the Trustees for natural
resources as designated in Section
300.600 of the NCP. Project
Managers need to coordinate with
the Trustees during RI/FS activities
to identify the extent of damage to
natural resources.
Most EPA Regions have a
Biological Technical Assistance
Group (BTAG) that reviews and
comments on the ROD before it is
signed. This group includes
scientists that advise and assist
Project Managers in planning,
conducting, and evaluating
ecological studies that are needed
in conjunction with the RI/FS.
BTAG members typically include
representatives from EPA, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration, State
agencies, and other organizations.
Although DoD Project Managers
are not BTAG members, they may
find it helpful to attend these
meetings and participate in
discussions that pertain to their
sites.
As with other participants in the
ROD process, EPA Project
Managers should coordinate with
the BTAG early and frequently
during the RI/FS process to
provide opportunities for input on
ecological issues at the site before
the BTAG reviews the ROD. The
first line of communication for
Project Managers is the BTAG
Coordinator in each EPA Region,
who can convene meetings and
help select appropriate data for
BTAG review. The structure and
function of the BTAG is discussed
in more detail in the EPA
publication "ECO Update: The
Role of BTAGs in Ecological
Assessment" (September 1991).
-34-
-------
Although State concurrence on a
DoD ROD is not required, it is
required for a site to be deleted
from the NPL. By actively seeking
State review and comment on work
plans and reports, Project Managers
can promote open communication
and good will. More than one State
agency may be involved in the
process. The EPA Project Manager
should review the FFA and speak
with the lead agency in the State to
identify all State offices that should
be kept abreast of activities. When
a Defense and State Memorandum
of Agreement (DSMOA) is in place
with the State, DoD is funding State
activities and State involvement
should be approached consistent
with the scope of the agreement.
The goals again are to limit
surprises, obtain the support of the
State agencies early, and pursue a
smooth path to the ROD com-
pletion.
IV.3.4 Use of the Technical
Review Committee
ongoing
Every DoD facility on the NPL has
a Technical Review Committee
(TRC) that consists of repre-
sentatives from local communities,
environmental groups, the public,
and other State, Federal, and local
agencies. The TRC is not a
decision-making body; rather the
TRC provides Project Managers
with an opportunity to meet,
coordinate, and communicate. The
TRC usually meets quarterly to
discuss issues regarding site
cleanup.
EPA and DoD Project Managers
should meet before the TRC so that
they can agree on the progress and
any concerns. Presentations to the
TRC should represent the views of
both EPA and DoD; this should not
be a time for surprises. It is critical
that EPA and DoD appear as a
unified body at the TRC with a
common goal of cleanup. Before
developing and signing the ROD,
the TRC can be used as a sounding
board for issues to anticipate how
the public may react to provisions
in the ROD. Thus, the TRC offers
opportunities to inform the public
of site activities, obtain early
feedback, and build consensus
among public groups before the PP
and the ROD are issued.
IV.4 Expediting Document
Preparation and Review/
Approval
ie! final; -ste:
you
iaster-
The goal of the opportunities and
methods described above, and the
goal of this entire guide, is to
expedite document preparation
and review en route to a signed
ROD. Project Managers can
streamline the writing of the PP
-35-
-------
A
and ROD by encouraging EPA and
DoD team members to work closely
in the preparation and review of
these documents. Project Managers
can accomplish this final step in the
ROD process by pursuing
concurrent preparation of the two
documents, joint preparation by the
EPA and DoD Project Managers,
and concurrent reviews of the
documents. Specific suggestions
for implementing these approaches
are presented in the following
sections.
IV.4.1 Joint DoD and EPA
Preparation of the PP
and ROD
: -to-' pirogjress:
"
Once the draft FS is available, joint
preparation of the PP and ROD can
start. Rather than waiting for
DoD's first submittal of the PP and
ROD to EPA for review and
approval, the DoD and EPA Project
Managers can write the PP and the
ROD together. This approach
allows the Project Managers to
respond immediately to specific
language, format, or other com-
ponents of the PP that they know
their agencies or other agencies
may not approve.
Project Managers should always
begin by looking at other sites that
have posed similar issues. The list
of RODs contained in Appendix A
provides information with which
Project Managers can target exist-
ing RODs that may be helpful. It
is a good idea to call the Project
Manager for similar sites, find out
what lessons were learned, and lis-
ten for similar problems that may
arise.
When it comes to putting pen to
paper, Project Managers can take
several approaches. For example,
the Project Managers can meet for
as long as necessary in the same
room to write the sections of the
PP and ROD. Similarly, the Project
Managers can jointly write the
documents by sending draft copies
(hard copy or computer diskettes)
via facsimile or overnight mail. In
actual case studies, both of these
approaches have been successful in
streamlining the ROD process.
-36-
-------
A
IV.4.2 Concurrent Preparation
of the PP and the ROD
' ',neede«j,:'
are
Although the PP is released for
public comment before the ROD is
finalized and signed, Project Man-
agers can prepare both documents
nearly simultaneously. Time can
be saved by submitting both docu-
ments for internal DoD and EPA
review and approval if Project
Managers follow three basic steps.
First, develop a draft PP. Second,
prepare a draft of the ROD. Third,
submit both documents for inter-
nal review.
A draft ROD can be developed at
the same time the PP is being
prepared by beginning with topics
that are not dependent on the
remedy, such as background on the
site and extent of contamination.
Since the ROD contains many more
details than the PP for legal
purposes, a summary of the issues
can be developed in the PP
simultaneously in nearly all cases.
Project Managers can often save
substantial amounts of time by
coordinating preparation of these
documents, as long as they
maintain an open mind to changes
that may be needed once the PP is
issued. By proceeding in this way,
both documents can go through the
internal review process once. Thus,
the overall time for preparation and
internal review of the documents
is compressed.
IV.4.3 Concurrent Reviews of
the PP and ROD
* Develop a complete list of
' ' " '
to;
eliminate .unftecesSarf 'delays.* '•
Once the Project Managers have
prepared the PP and ROD, the for-
mal reviews can also be ap-
proached concurrently. Early in the
process, DoD and EPA Project
Managers should identify all the
agencies that will need to review
the PP and the ROD. For example,
each of the services have health
agencies that need to be included.
These are as follows, by service:
• Army: Army Environmental
Hygiene Agency
• Navy: Navy Environmental
Health Center
• Air Force: Office of the Surgeon
General
• Defense Logistics Agency:
ATSDR.
Project Managers should develop a
complete list of required reviewers
-37-
-------
through discussions with their
management. Figure 4 presents an
initial list of reviewers as a starting
point for Project Managers.
Project Managers will submit the PP
or the ROD for formal review by
EPA, the State, other agencies, and
each office within the Project
Managers' chain of command
simultaneously. This way, Project
Managers do not have to wait for
EPA's review and concurrence, then
seek the State's review and comment,
and then repeat the process with
other agencies. If a reviewing agency
does have comments or changes, the
Project Managers must ensure that
the changes are conveyed to each
party reviewing the document
simultaneously. The ROD process
is complete once the document has
been signed by each required
signatory, culminating with the
signatures of the EPA Regional
Administrator and his or her
counterpart in the DoD service
responsible for the site. Once signed,
the DoD Project Manager should
ensure that a copy of the ROD is
included in the Administrative
Record for the site.
EPA
1 Project Manager
and Management
' Underground
Injection Control
Staff
• RCRA Technical
Support Staff
• CERCLA Technical
Support Staff *
• BTAG Staff *
• Air Staff
• Water Staff
1 Regional Counsel
and Management
> Headquarters Staff,
as Needed
Review only
Army
1 Army Secretariat
1 Army Staff (Army
Environmental Office)
1 Major Command
• USATHAMA
1 Installation Staff
1 Army Environmental
Hygiene Agency
Air Force
• Installation
Commander
• Installation Staff
1 Major Command
Environmental Office
with copies for the
Office of the Surgeon
General, the Judge
Advocate General,
and the Office of
Public Affairs
Navy
• Commanding Officer
of the Engineering
Field Division
• Installation
Commanding Officer
• Naval Facilities
Engineering
Command
Headquarters
DLA
• Director, Installation
Services and Environ-
mental Protection
• Chief, Environmental
Division
• U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers-Huntsville
Division
• Installation
Commanding Officer
Figure 4.
Potential Reviewers
-38-
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Project Managers can influence the pace of the ROD process
in many ways. The lessons presented in this guide are
approaches that have proven effective at other DoD facilities
on the NPL. EPA and DoD Project Managers are encouraged
to consider each of the opportunities for expediting the ROD
process that are presented in this guide and to share other
innovative approaches they find successful along their road
to ROD.
* •:» * * * «:• * * * »:• •:» * ***
-39-
-------
-------
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
Hot Lines
•The Federal Facilities Docket
Hotline (1-800-548-1016).
•The RCRA/Superfund Hotline
(1-800-424-9346).
Databases
These may only be accessible to
operating agency personnel.
• EPA: Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP),
Robin Richardson
(202) 260-9367.
• EPA: The Records of Decision
System (RODS) Database.
Thomas Batts
(202) 260-3770.
• EPA: The Cleanup Information
Bulletin Board (CLU-IN).
Dan Powell
(703) 308-8827.
• EPA: Vendor Information System
for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISITT)
Linda Fiedler
(703) 308-8799.
• DoD: Defense Environmental
Restoration Program Manage-
ment Information System
(DERPMIS). Patricia Janssen
(703) 695-8360.
• Department of the Navy: The
Navy Pollution Control Report
(PCR), Contact:
NAVFACENGCOM (code 18)
Alexandria, VA 22332
(703) 325-8538.
• Department of the Air Force:
Work Information Management
System-Environmental Subsystem
(WIMS-ES), DERA Module.
R.J. Furlong, HQUSAF/CEVR
(202) 767-4616
• Department of the Air Force:
Installation Restoration Program
Information Management System
(IRPIMS)
Phil Hunter
AFCEE/ESRD, Brooks AFB, TX
(800) 821-4528 ext. 281.
-------
EPA Dockets
• Superfund Docket
(202) 260-3046.
• RCRA Docket
(202) 260-9327.
• Toxic Substances Docket
(202) 260-3587.
• Air Docket
(202) 260-7548.
• Drinking Water Docket
(202) 260-9598.
-42-
-------
REFERENCES
Statutes
• The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-
9675 (1982 & Supp. IV 1986).
• The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 6921- 6939b (1982 and Supp.
IV 1986).
Regulations
• The National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan (40
CFR Part 300), March 8, 1990.
• Army Regulation (AR) 200-1,
"Environmental Protection and
Enhancement," Chapter 9, April
1990.
Guidance
EPA Guidance
• "ECO Update: The Role of BTAGs
in Ecological Assessment," U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency, Off ice of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Hazardous
Site Evaluation Division (OS-230),
OSWER Publication 9345.0-051,
September 1991.
• "ROD Annual Report FY 1990,"
EPA/540/8-91/067, Publication
9355.6-04, July 1991.
• "Conducting RI/FS for CERCLA
Municipal Landfill Sites," EPA
Publication 540/P-91/001,
February 1991.
• "Guidance on Remedial Actions
for Superfund Sites With PCB
Contamination," EPA Publication
540/G-90/007, August 1990.
• "Scoper's Notes," Publication No.
EPA/540/G-90/002, OS-240,
February 1990.
• "Guidance on Oversight of Poten-
tially Responsible Party RI/FS,"
-43-
-------
EPA Publication 540/2-90-011,
OSWER Directive 9835.1 (c)(d),
Volumes 1 and 2.
"The Federal Facilities Hazardous
Waste Compliance Manual,"
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Waste Pro-
grams Enforcement, Publication
9992.4, January 1990. This docu-
ment contains multiple guidance
documents issued by both EPA
and DoD, which include the fol-
lowing:
- Executive Order 12580 of
January 23, 1987.
- "Agreement with the Depart-
ment of Defense — Model
Provisions for CERCLA Federal
Facility Agreements": Memo-
randum from J. Winston Porter,
U.S. EPA to Regional Admin-
istrators, June 17, 1988.
- "Management Guidance for
Execution of the FY 1990/91
Defense Environmental Resto-
ration Program," Memorandum
from the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense, September
29,1989. (Please note this has
been superseded by the
November 15, 1991 document
issued by DoD and identified
under "DoD Guidance" below.)
- "Defense Priority Model:
Defense Environmental Restor-
ation Program," 54 Federal
Register 43104, October 20,1989.
• "CERCLA Compliance With
Other Laws Manual: Parts I
and II, " EPA Publications
9234.1-01 August 1988, and
9234.1-02, August 1989.
DoD Guidance
• ODASD(E) "Management Guid-
ance for Execution of the FY
1992/93 Defense Environmental
Restoration Program," Memo-
randum from the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense,
November 15, 1991.
• DA Pamphlet 40-578, "Health
Risk Assessment Guidance for
the Installation Restoration
Program and Formerly Used
Defense Sites," AEHA,
February 25, 1991.
• "U.S. Army Installation Restor-
ation Program Guidance and
Procedure," USATHAMA,
December 1990.
• "Commander's Guide to Public
Involvement in the Army's In-
stallation Restoration Program,"
USATHAMA, November 1990.
• "Commander's Guide to
Environmental Management,"
USATHAMA, October 1990.
• Technical Note No. 420-10-2,
"Work Classification Guidance
for Defense Environmental
-44-
-------
Restoration Program (DERP),"
U.S. Army Engineering and
Housing Support Center, Fort
Belvoir, VA, April 6, 1990.
Navy
• OPNAVINST5090.1A, "Environ-
mental and Natural Resources
Program Plan," October 1990.
Air Force
• "U.S. Air Force Installation
Restoration Program Manage-
ment Guidance," 1989.
DLA
• "Environmental Protection Man-
ual," Defense Logistics Agency
Manual (DLAM) 6050.1, July
1991.
Report
and
Fact Sheets
2 +
4 x
FACTS
2 = 4 2+2=4
3 = 9 3x3=9
2 = 8 4x2 = 8
"ARARs-Assist System, Avail-
ability of [Computer-aided
Environmental Legislative Data
System] CELDS Computerized
Database for the Identification of
ARARs," OSWER Publication
9234.2-19FS, September 1991.
"Guide to Addressing Pre-ROD
and Post-ROD Changes,"
OSWER Publication 9355.3-
02FS-4, April 1991.
"Guide to Developing Superfund
No Action, Interim Action, and
Contingency Remedy RODs,"
OSWER Publication 9355.3-
02FS-3, April 1991.
"Defense Environmental Resto-
ration Program Annual Report to
Congress for Fiscal Year 1990,"
February 1991.
"A Guide to Developing Super-
fund Records of Decision,"
OSWER Publication 9335.3-
02FS-1, May 1990.
"A Guide to Developing Super-
fund Proposed Plans," OSWER
Publication 9335.43-02FS-2, May
1990.
"A Guide to Selecting Superfund
Remedial Actions," OSWER Pub-
lication 9355.0-27FS, April 1990.
Additional fact sheets on ARARs
(OSWER Publications 9234.1-
01FS to -07FS); on Land Disposal
Restrictions (OSWER Publica-
tions 9347.3-01FS to -08FS); and
on the RI/FS (OSWER Publica-
tions 9355.3-01FS to -01FS4 and
9380.3-02FS).
-45-
-------
• "Superfund Records of Decision
Update," OSWER Publica-
tion 9200.5-2161, Intermittent
Bulletins.
• Additional fact sheets on
remediation and treatment
technologies can be obtained
from the Superfund Documents
Coordinator, EPA Headquarters,
(202) 260-9760.
-46-
-------
AEHA
AFB
ARAR
ATSDR
BTAG
CERCLA
CFR
CWA
DA
DBCP
DERP
DLA
DLAM
DNT
DoD
DOE
DSMOA
EPA
ESD
FFA
FY
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
Air Force Base
Applicable and Relevant or Appropriate
Requirements
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Biological Technical Assistance Group
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act of 1980
Code of Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
Department of the Army
Dibromochloropropane
Defense Environmental Restoration Program
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Logistics Agency Manual
Dinitrotoluene
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement
Environmental Protection Agency
Explanation of Significant Differences
Federal Facility Agreement
Fiscal Year
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)
FS Feasibility Study
GAC Granulated Activated Carbon
GB German Brown
GW Ground Water
IAG Interagency Agreement
IRM Interim Remedial Measure
MAJCOM Major Command
NAVFACENGCOM Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
OFFE Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU Operable Unit
OWPE Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
PA Preliminary Assessment
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCE Perchloroethylene
PP Proposed Plan
RA Remedial Action
-48-
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS (continued)
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
RI Remedial Investigation
ROD Record of Decision
RODS Records of Decision System
RDX Hexohydro-lAS-Trinitro-lAS-Triazine
RPM Remedial Project Manager
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SCAP Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
SI Site Investigation
SW Surface Water
TBC To Be Considered
TCE Trichloroethylene
TMV Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
TNT Trinitrotoluene
TRC Technical Review Committee
TQM Total Quality Management
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USATHAMA U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
UV Ultraviolet
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
-49-
-------
Appendix A.
ROD Summary for DoD Sitesl> 2
Site Name, Signed Threat
State ROD Date
West Virginia 3/27/87 Organics and asbestos
Ordnance, in soil, sediments, and
WV SW line
Rocky Mountain 6/4/87 VOCs, TCE, and
Arsenal, inorganics in GW
CO
West Virginia 9/30/88 Nitroaromatics and lead
Ordnance, in soil, sediments, and
WV GW
Twin Cities Army 8/11/89 VOCs, TCE, PCE, PCBs,
Ammunition Plant, and metals in soil
New Brighton/Arden Hills,
MN
Pica tinny 9/28/89 VOCs, TCE, and metals
Arsenal, in GW
NJ
Sacramento 9/29/89 VOCs, PCE, and TCE
Army Depot, in GW
CA
Rocky Mountain 2/26/90 Organics, arsenic, mer-
Arsenal (O.U. 23), cury, pesticides, TCE,
CO DBCP, organosulfur
compounds
Much of the information presented in Appendix A is available from the Records of De-
cision System (RODS) database, which is stored on EPA's IBM mainframe in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. The RODS database tracks information on each ROD
such as signature date, site name, remedy, key contaminants, and a full text of the ROD.
The database is menu-driven and allows rapid searches on these data. Direct access to
the RODS database is available to EPA staff, EPA contractors, State personnel, and
Federal facility representatives who can register for a user account established by EPA 's
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Information on accessing the RODS data-
base is available from the RODS staff at (202)260-3770.
-52-
-------
Selected
Remedy
EPA Contact
DoD Contact
In-situ flaming treat-
ment; cap; excavation,
flushing, and back-
filling; off-site disposal
Construction of GAG
water treatment; re-
placement of well pumps
and motors; installation
of transmission piping
GW treat and pump
with discharge to
SW; cap
On-site mobile infrared
thermal treatment
Robert Thomson
FTS 597-7858
(215)597-7858
Connally Mears
FTS 330-1528
(303)293-1528
Robert Thomson
FTS 597-7858
(215)597-7858
Tom Baroonis
(312)353-5575
Joseph Turner
(304)529-5282
Kevin Blose
(303)289-0201
Joseph Turner
(304)529-5282
Martin Cleary
(612)633-2301
Extension 662
GW pump and treat
with discharge to SW
GW pump and treat
In-situ vitrification;
vapor extraction; GW
extraction and treat-
ment with GAG; slurry
wall; vegetative cap
Bill Roach
FTS 264-8775
(212)264-8775
Marlin Mezquita
FTS 484-2393
(415)744-2393
Connally Mears
FTS 330-1528
(303)293-1528
Ted Gabel
(201)724-6748
Thomas Baker
(209)726-4841
Kevin Blose
(303)289-0201
All acronyms used in this appendix are defined in the "List of Acronyms" section
of this guide.
-53-
-------
Appendix A.
ROD Summary for DoD Sites (continued)
Site Name,
State
Rocky Mountain
Arsenal (O.U. 20),
CO
Tinker AFB,
OK
Ogden Defense
Depot,
UT
Dover AFB,
DE
Naval Industrial
Reserve Ordnance,
Plant,
MN
Naval Air Engineering
Center (Area C),
NJ
Naval Air Engineering
Center (Area H),
NJ
Rocky Mountain Arsenal,
South Tank Plume Farm,
CO
Robins AFB,
GA
Signed
ROD Date
3/20/90
8/15/90
9/27/90
9/28/90
9/28/90
2/4/91
2/4/91
6/6/91
6/26/91
Threat
Pesticides, heavy metals,
organics
VOCs including benzene,
PCE, TCE, toluene and
xylenes; other organics,
and metals in GW
and soil
Solvents and pesticides
inGW
Petroleum
hydrocarbons in soil
VOCs including PCE,
TCE, toluene, and
xylene in GW
GW contamination,
petroleum hydrocarbons
GW contamination,
petroleum hydrocarbons
Benzene, toluene,
xylene, and
bicycloheptadiene
GW contamination, or-
ganics, metals (primarily
arsenic, cadmium, lead),
tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene
-54-
-------
Treat wastewater using
physical/chemical
methods, including UV
oxidation and GAC
GW pump and treat;
off-site disposal; cap;
vapor extraction; GW
monitoring
Pump and treat GW;
dispose of soils off site
Remove underground
storage tanks and pipes
GW pump and treat;
off-site disposal
GW pump and treat; on-site
treatment; off-site disposal of
residuals
GW pump and treat; on-site
treatment; off-site disposal of
residuals
Monitoring and reeval-
uation of contaminated
GW plume
"Source Control" to min-
imize release of contaminants;
soil vapor extraction, solid-
ification/stabilization;
leachate collection
Connally Mears
FTS 330-1528
(303)293-1528
Susan Webster
(214)655-6730
Sandra Bourgeois
FTS 330-1975
(303)294-1975
Bruce Beach
(215)597-2317
Thomas Bloom
(312)886-7254
Jeff Gratz
(212)264-6667
Jeff Gratz
(212)264-6667
Connally Mears
(303)293-1528
Rosanne Rudd
(404)347-3016
Kevin Blose
(303)289-0201
Cpt. Dan Welch
(405)736-5102
Dale Fredde
(801)399-7848
Matt Parker
(302)677-6817
Jim Shafer
(215)897-6432
Lucy Bottomley
(908)323-2612
Lucy Bottomley
(908)323-2612
Daryl Smith
(303)289-0239
Bill Downs
(912)926-0983
-55-
-------
Appendix A.
ROD Summary for DoD Sites (continued)
Site Name,
State
Signed
ROD Date
Threat
Letterkenny Army Depot,
Southwest Area,
PA
8/2/91
Rocky Mountain Arsenal,
RMA Chem-Process,
CO
Bangor Naval Marine
Base (Site F),
WA
McCord AFB,
WA
Aberdeen Proving
Ground/Michaelsville
(O.U. 4), White
Phosphorous Underwater
Munitions Burial Area,
MD
Aberdeen Proving
Ground/Edgewood
(O.U. 5), Old "O"
Field Groundwater,
MD
Hill AFB,
UT
9/5/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/27/91
9/27/91
9/30/91
Soil contaminated
with organic compounds,
xylene, trans-1-2 dichloro-
ethylene, ethylbenzene,
trichoroethylene
Nerve agents, blister
agents (mustard gas,
GB, lewisite)
Ordnances, TNT, RDX
GW contamination,
trichloroethylene,
dichloroethylene
Environmental threat of
white phosphorous in
water
Metals, volatiles, and
military-unique
chemicals discharged
to Chesapeake Bay
Dense nonaqueous
phase liquid solvents,
TCE, other solvents
-56-
-------
Selected
Remedy
EPA Contact
DoD Contact
Low-temperature
thermal stripping
Dennis Orenshaw
(215)597-7858
Decontamination and
neutralization technique
using sodium hydroxide
and water
GW pump and treat;
treatability study with
UV oxidation technology
GW pump and treat;
GW extraction; carbon
absorption treatment
No effective action;
monitoring during storm
events or dredging
GW extraction and
treatment with chemical
precipitation and
UV oxidation
Pump and treat dense
nonaqueous phase liquid
Connally Mears
(303)293-1528
Howard Blood
(206)553-1172
Marie Jennings
(206)553-6637
Steve Hirsh
(215)597-0549
Steve Hirsh
(215)597-0549
Robert Stites
(303)294-1974
Peg Geiseking
(717)267-9690
Gerald Barbieri
(303)289-0125
Bela Varga
(206)476-5775
Michael J. Gremko
(206)984-3913
John Wroble
(301)671-3320
Cindy Powell
(301)671-3320
Bob James
(801)777-8790
-57-
-------
Appendix B.
Summary of Key Requirements
Section 120 of CERCLA
Upon the enactment of the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) in 1986,
Federal facility involvement and
compliance with CERCLA
requirements became mandatory.
Since then, DoD has been defining
its role in the CERCLA process.
Section 120 clearly states that "each
department, agency ... of the
United States shall be subject to,
and comply with [CERCLA], in the
same manner and to the same
extent, both procedurally and
substantively, as any nongovern-
mental entity." In particular,
Federal facilities are subject to EPA
enforcement actions, public
participation requirements, and
citizen suits. The statute provides
for joint selection of the remedy on
NFL sites by EPA and the Federal
agency; however, if no agreement
can be reached, EPA will select the
remedy. Section 120 does exempt
Federal facilities from provisions in
the law concerning financial
assurances and contracts with State
governments. In addition, the
President can exempt DoD and the
Department of Energy (DOE)
facilities from any statutory
requirements to protect national
security interests.
One important provision of Section
120 of CERCLA was the
requirement to establish a special
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket (Federal
facilities Docket or the Docket).
This Docket is an inventory of
Federal facilities that generated,
treated, stored, or disposed of
hazardous waste or reported a
release or potential release of
hazardous substances. Of the 1,654
facilities listed on the Docket, DoD
accounts for approximately 50
percent. Generally, any Federal
facility that submitted information
to EPA under Section 103 of
CERCLA or Sections 3005, 3010, or
3016 of RCRA is added to the
Docket. Once on the Docket, the
Federal agency must conduct a
Preliminary Assessment and, if
warranted, a Site Investigation.
Facilities will be evaluated with the
Hazard Ranking System and
possibly added to the NPL, thereby
increasing the scope and
requirements of the remedial
response.
Section 120 of CERCLA also
establishes strict scheduling
requirements for the administrative
process in evaluating and miti-
gating hazardous threats at Federal
facilities. In addition, it specifies
schedules for commencement of
RI/FSs, negotiation of IAGs, and
implementation and completion of
Remedial Actions.
-58-
-------
Section 211 of CERCLA
Section 211 of CERCLA amends
Title 10 of the U.S. Code (Armed
Forces), inserting a chapter on
Environmental Restoration. This
chapter requires the Secretary of
Defense to carry out a program of
environmental restoration at
facilities under his jurisdiction.
This program is known as the
Defense Environmental Restoration
Program (DERP). In establishing
such a program in the statute,
Congress required DoD to plan,
budget for, and implement an
environmental program to address
threats to human health and the
environment posed by DoD
facilities.
Executive Order 12580
Executive Order 12580, signed by
President Reagan on January 23,
1987, delegated authority to Federal
agencies to implement certain
provisions of CERCLA. Specif-
ically, Section 2(d) of the Executive
Order delegates to the Secretaries of
Defense and Energy the functions of
CERCLA Sections 104(a) and (b) and
c(4) [Investigations, Coordination,
and Selection of Remedy]; Section
113(k) [Administrative Record];
Section 117(a) and (c) [Proposed Plan
and Explanation of Differences];
Section 119 [Response Action
Contractors]; and Section 121 [Clean-
Up Standards] consistent with
Section 120 of CERCLA.
What this order means is that instead
of EPA having responsibility to
implement the above provisions of
CERCLA, DoD is responsible for its
own sites. DoD will be held
accountable by Congress for the
meeting the requirements of these
provisions.
Subpart K of the NCP
The regulations that interpret,
clarify, and implement the
provisions of CERCLA are found in
the NCP (40 CFR Part 300, March 8,
1990). However, the regulations
governing CERCLA activity at
Federal facilities (Subpart K of the
NCP) were reserved at that time.
Subpart K of the NCP will codify the
requirements of Section 120 of
CERCLA and provide a road map of
the entire NCP by identifying the
requirements of the NCP that are
applicable to Federal agencies
conducting CERCLA response
actions.
-59-
-------
------- |