905R90124
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9200.5-2161
June 1990
Superfund
Records R|
Update
JUN 1 3 1990
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Hazardous Site Control Division OS - 220 LIBRARY, REGION V
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 5 Number 5
Enclosed In this Issue of the ROD
Update Is the second In a series of five
fact sheets on Innovative technologies.
This issue also presents highlights from
the FY1989 ROD Analysis and FY1989
ROD Annual Report.
FY 1989 ROD Analysis
In January 1990, the annual ROD
Analysis was conducted by the Office
of Emergency and Remedial Re-
sponse (OERR) and the Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement
(OWPE).
One hundred and thirty-nine RODs
(all but 4 FY 1989 RODs) were ana-
lyzed. The results of the analysis are
presented in OSWER Directive
9355.3-09, issued March 30, 1990.,
Copies have been distributed to Re-
gional Division Directors. The analy-
sis focused on the consistency of
remedies with program expectations
regarding the appropriate use of treat-
ment technologies, containment, and
institutional controls, and the quality
of ROD documentation. The analysis
found that remedies generally are
consistent with the expectation to treat
materials comprising the principal
threats posed by the site- liquids,
highly toxic or highly mobile waste
(e.g. waste posing threats several
orders of magnitude above health-
based levels). Materials presenting
low-level threats are generally being
contained, although such materials
were being treated in some cases
(which may have been the most cost-
effective approach, given economies
of scale) and were not always clearly
delineated. The FY 1989 ROD Analy-
sis noted improvements in the quality
of the ROD documentation, particu-
larly those areas targeted for improve-
ment as a result of last year's ROD
Analysis.
The analysis identified five additional
areas which should be emphasized
in developing high quality RODs in FY
1990.
1. Documenting Site Risks
This area is the most important as-
pect of the ROD slated for improve-
ment for FY 1990. Final Action RODs
should summarize the results of the
baseline risk assessment conducted
for the site. RODs should also clearly
identify both the total carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic risks for the
populations at risk at the site via each
exposure pathway. Exposure as-
sumptions should be clearly identi-
fied, including current and future ex-
pected land use. RODs should also
include a summary of the environ-
mental risks.
2. Describing principal and low
level threats
Generally, FY 1989 RODs included
relatively clear descriptions of the
material comprising principal threats
posed on a site. However, the analy-
sis showed that low-level th reats cou Id
be defined more clearly in many cases.
A clear definition of principal versus
low-level threats is necessary for
measuring the consistency of reme-
dies with the program expectations.
In order to differentiate these threats,
the "Summary of Site Characteris-
tics" section of the ROD should link
contaminant concentrations and vol-
umes to specific areas of the site.
3. Documenting ARARs, particu-
larly the Land Disposal Restric-
tions (LDR)
Sections of the ROD documenting
ARARs are: Description of Alterna-
tives, Comparative Analysis, and
Statutory Determinations. The De-
scription of Alternatives section sum-
marizes how the components of each
alternative will comply with the major
ARARs and describes why the re-
quirement is ARAR. The Compara-
tive Analysis summarizes which of
the alternatives are fully ARAR com-
pliant or require any waivers. Finally,
under the Compliance with ARARs
finding in the Statutory Determina-
tions section, each ARAR the se-
lected remedy will attain should be
listed and proper citation provided.
This year's analysis showed that im-
provement is needed in documenting
a determination of whether wastes at
the site are RCRA wastes, whether
LDR is an ARAR (which should ap-
pear in all RODs), and whether RCRA
closure requirements are ARARs.
Continued on page 2
-------
4. Increasing the use of treatablllty
studies conducted during the re-
medial Investigation to support the
selection of Innovative technolo-
gies
This year's analysisfound that treata-
bility studies are often not conducted
during the Remedial Investigation, but
rather planned for remedial design.
Innovativetreatment technologies are
sometimes eliminated from consid-
eration when treatabilrty studies have
not been conducted priortotheROD.
Specifically, treatability studies were
completed prior to ROD signature for
approximately 17% of source control
RODs or remedies and six percent of
final ground water treatment remedies.
Thirty-six (36) additional treatability
studies are planned to be conducted
during the remedial design phase for
final source control actions. The FY
1989 ROD Analysis found that the
use of treatment, including innovative
treatment technologies, is increasing
annually. The FY 1989 ROD Annual
Report (see article on p. 3) states that
26% of FY 1987 source control RODs
used innovative treatment technolo-
gies, whereas 51 % of FY 1989 source
control RODs made use of innovative
treatment technologies.
5. Documenting points of compli-
ance and remediation goals
The description of the selected rem-
edy should provide the remediation
goals and the points of compliance
for each medium or area at the site
that is being addressed.
The analysis found that 62% of the
final source control RODs provided
remediation goals and 33% specified
the points of compliance for each
medium. Eighty-seven percent of fi-
nal ground-water RODs provided
remediation goals.
For more information on the FY 1989
ROD Analysis or the key areas of
emphasis for FY 1990 RODs, please
contact Sandra Panetta of the Haz-
ardous Site Control Division at FTS
475-9757.
Q: What triggers the RCRA Mint-
mum Technology Requirements
(MTR)?
A: The MTRs under RCRA require
that a unit be double lined and have
a leachate collection system. (Note
that if a unit is required to meet
MTRs it must also be in compliance
with other RCRA design standards.)
MTRs are required for new units, re-
placement units, and lateral expan-
sions of existing landfills 140 CFR
264.301 (c)] and surface impound-
ments [40 CFR 264,321 (c)J.
A lateral expansion Is defined to
be an expansion of the boundaries
of an existing unit,
Replacement occurs rf a unit is
emptied and reused. Reuse occurs
if original waste is removed from a
unit and different waste (either
ROD Q & A
treated or untreated from other units)
is put into the unit. If waste is re-
moved from a unit or area of contam i-
nation, treated, and put back into the
same unit, replacement does not oc-
cur. [See the interim final CERCLA
Compliance with Other laws Mawal,
EPA/54Q/G-89/006. August 1988.
Availability: CenterforEnvironmentai
Research Information (CERI), FTS
684-7562 or (513) 569-7562].
Q: Can waste that has been removed
from an area of contamination (AOC)
and treated in compliance with the re-
quirements under the land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) be redeposited in
the same AOC from which if was re-
moved without triggering MTRs?
A: Yes. The NCR states. "EPA gen-
erally equates the area of contamina-
tion with a single RCRA tandbased
unit, usually a landfill (54 FR 41444).
In most cases, these AOCs are not
subject to the design and operating
requirements for Subtitle C landfills
(40 CFR 301) because they are
viewed as portions of a landfill.
MTRs would not apply in this case,
for two reasons: 1.) The redeposi-
tion of the treated waste info the
AOC would not cause the AOC to
be considered a replacement unit;
2<) MTRs would not apply because
the AOC is not receiving "new"
waste, and thus, is not being reused,
Q: Are there circumstances under
which MTRs should be used, but
are not ARAR?
A: Yes, High concentrations of
waste posing a significant threat to
groundwater Sf nottreated generally
should be managed in units meet*
ing MTRs. Liners and leachate col-
lection systems will often be appro-
priate to assure long-term protec-
tive containment systems.
For ideas, submissions, or questions concerning the ROD Update, please contact Sharon Frey, Hazardous
Site Control Division at FTS 475-9754. Members of the public may obtain copies by phoning or writing EPA's
Public Information Center (PM-211B), 401 M St., S.W., Washington DC 20460. Phone (202)382-2080
-------
FY 1989 ROD Annual
Report
The FY 1989 ROD Annual Report
provides the Regions, Headquarters,
and the public with summary infor-
mation on FY 1989 RODs and his-
torical information on FY 1982-1989
RODs.
The data in the report are based on
143 RODs (139 RODs and 4 ROD
Amendments), including Fund-lead,
Enforcement-lead, and Federal Fa-
cility RODs that were signed during
FY 1989. Ninety-five (95) of the FY
1989 RODs addressed final source
control. The remaining 48 RODs
selected interim source control ac-
tions (10), ground water remedies
only (26), or no action/no further
action (12). Forty-eight (48) RODs
selected both source control and
ground water remediation compo-
nents. In keeping with CERCLA
Section 121 and the NCR's program
expectations, source treatment was
selected in almost 73% (69 of 75)
final source control RODs. (See
Exhibit 1 below forthe numberof final
and interim source control remedies
employed in each treatment category.)
The report is a reference document
and is divided into the following five
sections:
Introduction - highlights specific ac-
complishments in the ROD process
and gives an historical overview.
FY 1989 ROD Abstracts - describes
site conditions, key contaminants,
selected remedial actions, perform-
ance standards, institutional controls,
costs, and site-specific keywords for
each FY 1989 ROD.
FY 1989 ROD Summary Table - pro-
vides the remedial action site name
and date of ROD signature, and sum-
marizes the threat or problem, the
contaminants by media, waste vol-
ume, components of the selected
remedy, cleanup goals and costs for
each FY 1989 ROD.
FY 1982-1988 ROD Summary
Table - provides the remedial action
site name and ROD signature date,
and summarizes the threat or prob-
lem, waste volume, major compo-
nents of the selected remedy, and
costs for each FY 1982-1988 ROD.
ROD Keyword List - provides a sum-
mary listing under each keyword of all
RODs that have an association with
the keyword based on the selected
remedial action
The FY 1989 ROD Annual Report will
be printed and mailed to the Regions
in June 1990. Copies will also be
made available to the public.
Exhibit 1
OCCURRENCES OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES IN
FINAL AND INTERIM SOURCE CONTROL REMEDIES8
35 - -
30 - -
Number of 20 - -
Occurrence*
gggg Final Source Control
| I Interim Source Control
Incineration/ Solidification/
Thermal Stabilization
Treatment
Vacuum/ Volatilization/ Soil Washing/ Biodegradation/ Solvent Other/Not
Vapor Soil Aeration Flushing Land Application Extraction Specified
Extraction
Treatment Technology
* Data reflect occurrences of technologies as selected in the 76 source control RODs that used treatment as
the principal remedy; more than one remedy may be associated with a ROD.
-------
Documentation and
Use of ARAR Waivers
CERCLA Section 121 (d)(4) specifies
six circumstances under which waiv-
ers from the applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements:
equivalent performance, fund balanc-
ing, greater risk, inconsistent state
application, interim action and techni-
cal impracticability. [Forfurther infor-
mation, please see the NCP begin-
ning on p. 8747 and the interim final
CERCLA Compliance with Other
Laws Manual EPA/540/G-89/006,
Augusts, 1988. Availability: Center
for Environmental Research Informa-
tion FTS 684-7562 or (513) 569-7562)]
A mini-analysis was conducted of 581
RODs signed between FY 1982 and
FY1989 to determine the type and
frequency of ARAR waivers that have
been used to date.
Out of the total of 581 RODs. 37 ARAR
waivers were invoked in 31 RODs (5
percent). The following RODs:
Diamond Alkali, NJ; Ambler Asbes-
tos, PA (both 1988 and 1989 RODs),
and Libby Ground Water, MT invoked
two or more waivers, while one ROD
(Operating Industries #3, CA) invoked
one waiver while at the same time
possibly invoking another waiver.
Seymour Recycling, IN and Broder-
ick Wood Product, CO both stated
the possibility of invoking the Techni-
cal Impracticability Waiver. Two
RODs did not specify which type of
waiver was invoked.
Records of Decision Documenting ARAR Waivers
Type of Waiver, Site Name
Equivalent Standard of Performance
Region 2 Diamond Alkali, NJ
Fund Balancing
Region 5 Outboard Marine/Johnson, IL
9 Iron Mountain Mine, CA
Greater Risk
Region 2 Diamond Alkali, NJ
3 Ambler Asbestos Piles, PA
3 Ambler Asbestos Piles, PA
5 Galesburg/Koppers Wood Treating, IL
*9 Operating Industries #3, CA
Interim Action
Region 2 Ewan Property, NJ
2 Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
3 Havertown PCP, PA
3 Kane & Lombard, MD
5 Ninth Avenue Dump, IN
7 Arkansas City Dump, KS
7 Hastings/Colorado Avenue, NE
7 Hastings/FAR-MAR-CO, NE
*8 Brodenck Wood Product, CO
8 California Gulch/Yak Tunnel, CO
8 Central City/Clear Creek, CO
8 Central City/dear Creek, CO
8 Libby Ground Water, MT
9 Motorola 52nd Street, AZ
9 Operating Industries #1 , CA
9 Operating Industries #3, CA
Technical Impracticability
Region 1 Pinette's Salvage, ME
1 Sullivan's Ledge, MA
2 Caldwell Trucking, NJ
2 Diamond Alkali, NJ
3 Ambler Asbestos Piles, PA
3 Ambler Asbestos Piles, PA
5 E.H. Schilling Landfill, OH
*5 Seymour Recycling, IN
8 Libby Ground Water, MT
*9 Phoenix Goodyear Airport, AZ
* Possibility that waiver will be invoked
Signature Date
9/30/87
5/15/84
10/3/86
9/30/87
9/30/88
9/29/89
6/28/89
9/30/88
9/29/88
9/28/89
9/29/89
9/30/87
9/20/88
9/29/88
9/28/88
9/30/88
6/30/88
3/29/88
9/30/87
3/31/88
12/30/88
9/30/88
7/31/87
9/30/88
5/30/89
7/29/89
9/28/89
9/30/87
9/30/88
9/29/89
9/29/89
9/30/87
12/30/88
9/26/89
Fund Lead: RI/FS and ROD
Regional Contacts
Enforcement Lead: Removal) Rl/FS-
ROD, RD/RA Negotiations
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Name
Jennifer Haley
Alison Barry
Deborah McKie
Sharon Frey
Vanessa Musgrave
Tish Zimmerman
Andrea Mclaughlin
Sandra Panetta
Robin Anderson
Tish Zimmerman
Steve Golian
David Cooper
Steve Golian
FTS No.
475-6705
475-9839
475-9759
475-9754
382-2464
382-2461
382-6978
475-9757
382-2446
382-2461
475-9750
475-6703
475-9750
Region
1
II
lit
IV
V
VI
VJI
VIII
IX
X
Name
Kurt Lamber
Bruce Kulpan
Lance Elson
Kathryn Boyte
Neilima Senjalia
Tai-Ming Chang
Irish Gowland
Filomena Chau
Jack Schad
Joe Tieger
Ross Natoli
Rick Popino
Joe Tieger
FTS No.
382-4831
475-7203
382-5617
475-9317
475-7027
382-4839
382-7790
475-7082
382-4848
475-8372
382-2063
382-3401
475-8372
Fund and Enforcement Lead: Design
and Construction
Region Name
I Joann Griffith
II Robert Heffernan
III Bill Zobel
IV Ken Skahn
V Tracy Loy
VI Ed Hanlon
VII Ken Skahn
VIII Ben Hamm
IX Ed Hanlon
X Ed Hanlon
FTS No.
475-6704
475-9751
382-2347
382-2457
382-7997
475-9753
382-2457
382-7998
475-9753
475-9753
* This list of Regional contacts at HQ up-
dates the list in the Nov. 1989 issue of
the ROD Update.
------- |