United States Q^-[Ce of the |nspector General
Environmental Protection Q,,.^ Qf Audjt (A 1Qg)
Washington, DC 20460 April 1989
5EPA Report of Audit
E1 S4*7-11 -0037-9100236
REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR
1987 SUPERFUND REPORT TO
CONGRESS
-------
X
It
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 1
SUMMARY OF RESULTS 2
DETAILS OF REVIEW 3
Annual Report Chapter 2.0 - Responding to Releases
of Hazardous Substances 3
Annual Report Chapter 7.0 - Development and Evalua-
tion of Permanent Treatment Technologies 10
Annual Report Chapter 13.0 - Executive Branch
Estimate of Resources Needed To Complete CERCLA
Implementation 11
Annual Report Appendix C - Detailed ROD Descrip-
tions 11
Annual Report Preparation Process 12
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1 - FY87 Activities Annual Report vs.
Regional Records 14
EXHIBIT 2 - Review of Regional Records for FY87 16
EXHIBIT 3 - Feasibility Study Write-up Example 17
ex-
HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 61989
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Audit Report No. E1S4*7-11-0037-9.10023 6
Review of the Fiscal Year 1987
fund Report to Congress
ector General (A-109)
.liam K. Reilly
Administrator (A-100)
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
This report presents the results of our review of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency's (EPA) Annual Report to Congress on
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund; Fiscal Year 1987 (Annual
Report). The objectives of our review were to determine whether
the Annual Report is reasonable and accurate, as required by
Section 301(h)(2) of the Comprehensive Enviromental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
We conducted our review between January 15, 1988 and January 23,
1989, at EPA Headquarters and in EPA Regions 2, 5, 8 and 9. We
completed most of our work by August 1988, when EPA sent the
report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
However, we also reviewed the final changes made to the report
in January 1989, after OMB's review had been completed.
Our work focused on Fiscal Year 1987 (FY87) activities. Numerous
auditors familiar with the Superfund program reviewed the entire
Annual Report to determine if there were any sections which did
not appear to be reasonable and accurate. We performed detailed
audit work in EPA Headquarters and Regions 2, 5, 8 and 9 to
verify the accuracy of key information presented in Chapters 2.0,
"Responding To Releases of Hazardous Substances", and 7.0,
"Development and Evaluation of Permanent Treatment Technologies".
These chapters of the Annual Report addressed five of the seven
areas specifically required by Section 301(h)(l) of CERCLA.
-------
We did not perform detailed audit work on Chapter 13.0, "Executive
Branch Estimate of Resources Needed To Complete CERCLA Implementation"
another area which CERCLA required, since the Agency provided only
current budget figures in response to this requirement. Finally,
we reviewed Appendix C, "Detailed ROD Descriptions", to determine
if the summaries presented were reasonable.
Throughout the course of our review, we brought the concerns
which we identified to the Agency's attention. The Agency
corrected most of these concerns.
Except as noted below, our work was performed in accordance
with the Standards for Audit of Government Organizations.
Programs. Activities and Functions (1981 revision) issued by
the Comptroller General of the United States. We did not perform
a full scope audit to determine if the Superfund program is
achieving the results required by CERCLA, nor did we perform
extensive tests to determine if internal controls are adequate.
We performed audit work we believed necessary to determine if
key information included in the Annual Report is reasonable and
accurate. Furthermore, for the items not tested, based on our
review, nothing came to our attention which warranted more
detailed audit work than that described in the DETAILS OF
REVIEW section.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
We found that some of the areas presented in the Annual Report,
such as the information presented in Chapter 7.0 on the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program, were generally
reasonable and accurate. However, other important areas of the
report included information which was not reasonable and accurate,
and some information was not as complete as it could have been.
In addition, the process the Agency used to prepare the Annual
Report was not completely effective.
Certain information presented in Chapter 2.0 of the Annual Report
was not reasonable or accurate. First, program accomplishments
figures were frequently inaccurate because the Agency used Head-
quarters information systems which were not reliable to prepare
its report. Many of their figures did not agree with the
corresponding information secured from regional systems, and
significant portions of the regional claims were not supported
by valid source documents. In addition, Appendix D of the
Annual Report, which shows the status of Remedial Investigations/
Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) and Remedial Actions (RA) on
September 30, 1987, identifies delays which occurred since
January 1, 1987, but does not identify any delays which may
have occurred prior to that date.
-------
The Agency's official definitions of two terms used in the
Annual Report, the "start" of key program activities and "oper-
able unit", may lead the reader to believe that more on-site
work was done, at a greater number of facilities, than actually
occurred. Specifically, the Agency defines "start" as a
financial transaction, i.e., when funds are obligated to begin
work. No actual on-site cleanup work needs to be performed to
qualify as a "start", and many months can elapse between the
obligation of funds and the commencement of on-site work. In
addition, EPA frequently divides Superfund "sites" into "oper-
able units" to more easily manage the cleanup process. One
site can have ten or more operable units, creating difficulty
in correlating the number of cleanup actions taken during FY87
with overall cleanup progress at Superfund sites.
In two areas of the Annual Report, we believe the information
presented was not as complete as it could have been. First,
CERCLA requires the Agency to provide an estimate of the resources
needed to complete implementation of the statute. In response,
however, EPA provided only the Agency's FY87 through FY89 budget
figures. Second, we do not believe that the level of detail
provided in the feasibility studies descriptions is sufficient,
so that the reader can fully understand and appreciate EPA's
decision-making process.
Finally, the process used to prepare the Annual Report was not
fully effective. For example, the report coordinator's resources
were limited, and key end of fiscal year data was still uncertain
and, in some cases, unavailable for our review until April 1988.
As a result, the Annual Report was not completed until January
1989, even though it was due to Congress on January 1, 1988.
The details of our scope, methodology, and results of review
for the concerns summarized above are presented in the DETAILS
OF REVIEW section of our report.
DETAILS OF REVIEW
Annual Report Chapter 2.0 - Responding To
Releases of Hazardous Substances
As previously stated, some of the information in the Annual
Report wu not finalized until January 1989. In order that
our review would not delay the report any further, we began
our field work by using a January 1988 draft, and used updated
drafts as they became available. We identified the types of
information included in the report, and specifically focused
our field work on those items CERCLA required. We then selected
four regions in which to perform our detailed audit work:
Regions 2 and 5 because of their heavy volume of Superfund
activity; and Regions 8 and 9 because of their significantly
lower volume. Recognizing regional differences, we hoped in
this manner to obtain a balanced, nationwide perspective in
our review.
3
-------
We initially planned to select a sample of cases for review
from the Headquarters information systems being used to prepare
the Annual Report. In early December 1987, we began requesting
details on which systems were being used. As of January 15,
1988, when we began our review, the report coordinator could
not tell us all of the systems that would be used to provide
input. Therefore, because we did not nave a universe of cases
from Headquarters records from which to select a sample, we
obtained FY87 information directly from the EPA Regions.
regional officials provided this information from a variety of
computerized and handwritten systems, and stated that it was
the most accurate available.
We first verified the accuracy of the regional numbers by inter-
viewing regional staffs and reviewing source documentation. In
some cases, we reviewed 100 percent of the actions; however, if
the number was prohibitively large, we randomly selected a sample
for review. We also selectively reviewed a small number of end
of year actions to determine whether there existed instances in
which Superfund accomplishments were merely "paper transactions"
and no on-site work was actually performed. We did not perform a
statistical sample; therefore, the results of our review should
not be projected throughout EPA.
Although the Annual Report shows totals by region for Removal
Starts and Removal Completions, it shows only nationwide totals
for the other major Superfund activities we reviewed. The report
coordinator provided us with regional information on these other
activities late in our review. Therefore, at the conclusion of
our field work, we compared the totals provided by the regions to
those provided by the coordinator. We could not make this
comparison earlier because, in most cases, the report coordinator
was unable to provide the regional details until April 6, 1988.
Although we cannot state conclusively what the correct figures
are, it is evident from our work that some of the information
presented in this report chapter is not completely reliable. In
virtually every case, the total accomplishments figures included
in the Annual Report did not agree with regional records (see
exhibit 1 at the end of this report). And, as exhibit 2 shows,
30 percent of removal activities and 13 percent of remedial
activities claimed by the regions were not supported by valid
documentation in the regions' files. Specifically, in many cases
the regional officials could not provide any source document
clearly showing that the accomplishment claimed actually occurred
in FY87 ("source document not located"). In a number of other
cases, the documents provided by regional officials showed that,
according to Agency definitions, the accomplishment should have
been claimed in another fiscal year ("invalid FY87 actions").
-------
RemovalStartsAnd Completions
The Annual Report showed a total of 97 Removal Starts for Regions 2,
5, 8 and 9, while these regions reported 107 Removal Starts to the
auditors. The total of 75 Removal Completions in the Annual Report
was less than the total reported by the regions. We sampled 32
starts and 18 completions and found that, according to Agency defini-
tions, 28 starts and seven completions (70 percent) were supported
as valid FY87 actions. (Figures 1 and 2 below)
FIGURE 1
REMOVAL STARTS
Real on
2
5
8
9
Starts
Annual
Report
36
35
11
15
Per;
Rea ion
40
40
11
16
Sample
Size
4
7
6
15
Valid
FY87
Actions
4
7
6
11
Source
Documents
Not
Located
4
Invalid
FY87
Actions
Total
97
107
32
28
FIGURE 2
REMOVAL COMPLETIONS
Reaion
2
5
8
9
Completions
Annual
Report
29
30
4
12
Per;
Reaion
33
37
4
12
Sample
Size
4
oly
2
12
Valid
FY87
Actions
4
2
1
Source
Documents Invalid
Not FY87
Located Actions
10 1
Total
75
86
18
10
Review of a sample was not performed due to time constraints. We
were forced to curtail our review to keep pace with the Agency's
early schedule for Annual Report issuance.
-------
Preliminary Assessments and Site Inspections
The Annual Report included 1,925 Preliminary Assessments (PA) as
completed in FY87. The four regions which we reviewed reported that
1,958 PAs were completed. In addition, the Annual Report indicated
that 514 Site Inspections (SI) were completed in FY87, while these
regions reported 518. Of the 36 PA completions and 40 SI completions
we examined, 26 PA and 33 SI completions (78 percent) were valid FY87
actions. Figures 3 and 4 below provide the detailed results of our
review.
FIGURE 3
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT COMPLETIONS
Reaion
2
5
8
9
Completions
Annual
Report
505
802
132
486
Per;
Reaion
524
814
134
486
Sample
Size
12
12
2
10
Valid
FY87
Actions
11
7
1
7
Source
Documents
Not
Located
1
Invalid
FY87
Actions
1
4
1
3
Total 1,925 1,958 36 26
FIGURE 4
SITE INSPECTION COMPLETIONS
Completions Per;
Reaion
2
5
8
9
Annual
Report
152
224
34
104
Reaion
152
228
34
104
Sample
Size
10
22
1
7
Valid
FY87
Actions
10
16
7
Source
Documents Invalid
Not FY87
Located Actions
6
1
Total
514
518
40
33
-------
Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies
The Annual Report included 100 RI/FSs in FY87 for the four regions we
reviewed. However, these regions reported only 96 RI/FS starts to the
auditors. We sampled 62 RI/FSs and found 55 (89 percent) were valid
FY87 actions. (Figure 5 below)
FIGURE 5
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS/FEASIBILITY STUDIES
Reaion
2
5
8
9
Starts
Annual
Report
30
45
10
15
Per:
Reoion
30
42
10
14
Sample
Size
5
42
10
5
Valid
FY87
Actions
5
41
4
5
Source
Documents Invalid
Not FY87
Located Actions
1
6
Total 100
I ========s=====:
96
62
55
Records of Decision/Selection of Remedy
We found that the number of Records of Decision (ROD) which the Annual
Report indicated were signed in FY87 was almost identical to the figure
presented by the regions. The Agency reported 40 completed RODs for
the regions which we reviewed, while these regions reported 39. We
reviewed the 39 RODs and found that only one was not a valid FY87
action.
Remedial Designs and Remedial Actions
Our scope of review for these two actions included Regions 2, 5, and 8
(due to time constraints, we could not complete field work in Region 9).
The Annual Report included 47 Remedial Design (RD) starts, compared to
39 reported to the auditors by the three regions. The Annual Report
stated that 26 RAs were started in FY87, while the three regions
reported 21 RA starts. Twenty-one of the 24 RD starts and all of the 15
RA starts that we reviewed were supported by source documentation as
FY87 actions. (Figures 6 and 7 below)
-------
Total
FIGURE 6
REMEDIAL DESIGN STARTS
Reaion
2
5
8
Starts
Annual
Report
22
18
7
Per:
Reaion
19
13
7
Sample
Size
3
14i/
7
Valid
FY87
Actions
3
13
5
Source
Documents
Not
Located
Invalid
FY87
Actions
1
2
47
39
24
21
—/ The sample is greater than the regional figure because we located
an additional FY87 start in the region's files.
Total
FIGURE 7
REMEDIAL ACTION STARTS
Reoion
2
5
8
Starts
Annual
Reoort
10
12
4
Pert
Reaion
8
10
3
Sample
Size
2
10
3
Valid
FY87
Actions
2
10
3
Source
Documents
Not
Located
Invalid
FY87
Actions
26
21
15
15
Additional Comments
During our review, we also identified concerns with the Annual
Report in such areas as definitions of terms and RI/FS timeframes.
Further, a recent Office of Inspector General (OIG) "Capping"
Report titled EPA. Office of the Inspector General Audits of
Superfund Cooperative Agreements for Fiscal Years 1985 Throuoh
1987 (Audit Report No. E5eE8-09-0018-80838), dated March 29,
1988, consolidated the results of numerous OIG reviews and
pointed out many of the same concerns that we are reporting.
8
-------
The Annual Report includes information on the number of "starts"
for various activities. During our review we found that there
is confusion among Agency personnel on how a "start" is defined.
The Agency officially defines "start" as a financial transaction/
i.e., when funds are obligated to perform the activity. It is
important for the reader to understand that under this defini-
tion, no actual on-site work needs to have begun to officially
qualify as a start. Our review of Regional records showed that
for many "starts", only funding transactions occurred during
FY87. So although these met the Agency's definition, no actual
on-site work took place. For example, three of the 42 RI/FS
starts and three of the ten RA starts which Region 5 reported
were for funding documents prepared in September 1987, but no
on-site work had begun at the time of our review in February
1988. The OIG "Capping" Report discussed the same condition.
Further, while this definition may be widely known at Headquarters,
many Regional officials were not aware of it. This caused
problems in our review, because when questioned, Regional officials
frequently had to ask the auditors to define a "start" before
they could give us any information.
We believe that it is important for the reader to fully under-
stand the Annual Report's discussion of "operable units", and
the implications this recordkeeping method has for overall
Superfund accomplishments. EPA frequently divides Superfund "sites"
into "operable units" to more easily manage the cleanup process.
Each of these operable units (OU) may address a different
problem at, or a different portion of, a site. For example, one
site in Region 8 had four operable units. An RI/FS was completed
on one OU during FY87, and RI/FSs were in process on the other
three OUs. These three OUs will be reported as completions
in future years, but they all pertain to that one site. At
another Region 8 site, records showed that as many as 11 OUs
existed. Five of the seven Region 8 RODs signed during FY87
were for OUs at this one site. Because EPA uses this method of
recordkeeping, it is difficult to correlate the number of actions
(RI/FSs, RODs, etc.) taken.during FY87 with overall cleanup
progress at Superfund sites.
Appendix D of the Annual Report shows the status of active RI/FSs
and RAs on September 30, 1987. This table shows the planned
completion date as estimated on January 1, 1987. However, the
table may not show any previously published schedules for RI/FSs
and RAs. Therefore, if a project will not meet a previously
published schedule, the table will not reveal this fact.
Section 2.4 of the Annual Report states that EPA chose the
January 1, 1987, date because it marked the first update for
RI/FS and RA projects after the hiatus between Superfund
authorizations. Further, EPA officials believed that choosing
-------
.fj
an earlier date would have included time lost due to
circumstances beyond EPA's control. However, regardless of
what may have caused the delays, EFA is not providing the
precise information required by CERCLA Section 301(h)(1)(C).
The "Capping" Report identified the same concerns we did with
the accuracy of the Agency's Superfund information systems.
For example, the CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) is one of
EPA's key tracking systems and represents an inventory of all
potential hazardous waste sites known to EPA. 016 audits have
found that regions are not inputting accurate and up-to-date
information into CERCLIS. Even though the Agency was aware of
these problems, it relied on CERCLIS for some information in
the Annual Report.
Finally, the "Capping" Report summarized problems with documenta-
tion in regional files, which we also found during our review.
In many cases, regional officials had great difficulty locating
the required source documents in their files, and in some cases
they could not find these documents at all. For example, exhibit
2 shows that source documents could not be located for 28 percent
of the removal actions and three percent of the remedial actions
we reviewed.
In discussing the discrepancies between the numbers in the
Annual Report and those that regional officials provided to the
auditors, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)
officials stated that they considered the differences to be
minor. These officials objected to our securing information
from the regions, stating that Headquarters management systems
are the official Agency systems to which the regions report.
Further, the Director of OERR explained that there is only one
EPA "system", and that even though some data in this system was
not accurate, the problem is data entry into the system.
Annual Report Chapter 7.0 - Development And
Evaluation of Permanent Treatment Technologies
We reviewed the information presented in the Agency's report on
the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program,
since most of the FY87 progress made in developing and evaluating
permanent treatment technologies was centered in this program.
We again used the January 1988 report draft to begin our field
work, and reviewed updated drafts as they became available. To
determine if the information presented on the SITE Program was
reasonable and accurate, we interviewed officials from the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and the
Office of Research and Development (ORD), who jointly administer
the program. Additionally, we visited ORD personnel at the
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, who are
10
-------
responsible for the technical aspects of the field demonstra-
tions, and reviewed available files and source documentation.
Based on our review, we believe that the information presented
on the SITE Program is generally reasonable and accurate.
Annual Report Chapter 13.0 - Executive Branch
Estimate of Resources Needed ToComplete CERCLAImplementation
We did not perform in-depth audit work on this chapter of the
Annual Report, because it consists of FY87 obligations, the
resource estimates from the FY88 Operating Flan, and the
Agency's budget request for FY89, all of which is readily
available information. We wish to emphasize that the figures
presented are not estimates of the exact Agency needs for
completely accomplishing the requirements of CERCLA.
The language of CERCLA suggests that Congress may have wanted
estimates in the Annual Report for the total cost of completely
implementing the statute. Although some projections beyond FY89
were included in one of the last drafts of the Annual Report,
they were removed during the Agency review process.
During the Agency's internal review of the report, the Office
of General Counsel commented that the resource projections in
Chapter 13 do not go as far as the statute requests. Further,
the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation recommended a
more comprehensive approach for future reports.
We are not aware of any current, comprehensive study within EPA
to define the needs for accomplishing the CERCLA requirements.
However, a recent report by the Surveys and Investigations Staff
of the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives,
points out the gap between current Superfund funding and potential
"real" needs. In a March 1988 report, Status of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Superfund Program, the committee staff stated
that, using average cost estimates to clean up National Priority
List (NPL) sites, "793 sites (would) require Federal funds ranging
from about $16.7 to $23.8 billion, far in excess of the available
$8.5 billion." The report also noted that this estimate does
not account for the possibility of hundreds of new sites being
added to the NPL.
Annual Report Appendix C -
Detailed ROD Descriptions
Historically, Congress has expresssed concerns with some aspects
of EPA's decision-making processes. One purpose of the CERCLA
requirement for detailed feasibility studies descriptions was to
help Congress better understand how EPA makes decisions on Super-
fund sites.
11
-------
The 016 believes that the level of detail contained in the Annual
Report's feasibility studies descriptions does not provide suffi-
cient information so that EPA's decision-making process on Superfund
sites can be fully understood. The feasibility studies write-ups
generally contained a brief description of the site, discussion
of initial work done at the site, overview information about the
feasibility studies (including only one sentence summaries of the
cleanup alternatives considered), selected information on the
requirements considered, and a brief summary of the reasons for
selecting the chosen remedy.
In our opinion, the descriptions of the cleanup alternatives need
to be expanded to clearly demonstrate the extent of EPA's
decision-making efforts. The ROD documents, from which the
Annual Report was prepared, contain a great deal of information
on the alternatives, such as costs, benefits (including consid-
eration of CERCLA goals)/ and risks to the public health and the
environment. If the feasibility studies descriptions had contained
this additional information, it would have greatly aided the
reader in understanding how EPA made these decisions.
Exhibit 3 to our report is an example of a more complete feasibil-
ity study write-up, which we believe demonstrates the additional
information that should have been made available to the reader.
Annual Report Preparation Process
The process used to prepare the Annual Report was not fully
effective. Although this report was due to Congress January 1,
1988, the report was not completed until January 1989. Since
this is the first time the report was prepared, some problems
were expected. However, the problems which we identified in our
report seem.to have been much greater than they should have been.
Part of the reason that the Annual Report encountered such diffi-
culties is that the report coordinator's resources were limited.
Also, at his grade level (GS-13), he was not in a position of
authority from which to command action on the part of other organi-
zations whose input was vital. For example, as of March 1988, the
report coordinator was still uncertain of the sources and accuracy
of many of the accomplishments figures in the report. Despite
our repeated requests for detailed information over a period of
four months, he was unable to secure the information from the
Agency offices responsible for compiling it. Further, the coordi-
nator had different figures for the same accomplishments, depending
on which information system he used. This should not be the case
six months after the end of the fiscal year, and is a further
adverse reflection on the reliability of the Agency's information
systems.
12
-------
OSWER officials stated that the main information system, CERCLis,
has been improved for FY88. These officials believe that the use
of the improved CERCLIS will enhance the accuracy of the FY88
Annual Report, as well as decrease its preparation time. However,
this system will also contain information that is not reliable,
unless steps are taken to ensure that regional input to CERCLIS
is accurate and complete.
13
-------
CO
Q
CC
O
o
UJ
DC
uQ
PO
^ LU
P*
°fl
h-
LU
o:
D
Q
Z
LJ
O
U
h-
ir
o
a.
LJ
a:
D
Z
Z
t/1
Q
(T
O
U
LJ
a:
z
g
o
LJ
Lt
EXHIBIT 1
Page 1 of 2
I
P
(K
<
V)
UJ
ct
V)
z
_
Q.
5
O
O
z
LJ
2
U
l/l
5
_i
UJ
UJ
tr
CO
z
g
i-
o
LJ
0.
V)
z
UJ
H
V)
S3I1IAI10V
14
-------
LJ
I-
o
N
00
GO
Q
O
O
LJ
LY
LL O
CL
LJ
LY
<
D
<
t
<
LJ
z
O
5
u
>
D
Ld
s
u
(T
EXHIBIT 1
Page 2 of 2
O
O
u
Q
Li.
O
Q
o:
o
o
UJ
cc:
a;
<
LO
z
o
10
Ld
O
Q
UJ
2
Ld
o:
a:
(S)
z
o
o
Q
U
2
u
a:
S3I1IAI10V
15
-------
EXHIBIT 3
Page 1 of 6
Feasibility Study Write-Up
Example
This exhibit highlights the additional information we believe
should have been included in the feasibility studies write-ups
As an example, we have inserted this extra information, quoted
from the ROD, into the existing Annual Report text on the
Laskin/Poplar Oil Site. We have indented this additional
information to identify it for the reader.
LASKIN/POPLAR OIL SITE
SOURCE MATERIAL OPERABLE UNIT
ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
HRS Score: 35.95
Background
NPL Rank: 492
The Laskin/Poplar Oil Site is located west of the village of
Jefferson in Ashtabula County, Ohio. The 9-acre site is bounded
by Cemetery Creek and the Ashtabula Fairgrounds. The site was
formerly used for greenhouse operation beginning in the 1930'a.
Boilers were installed to heat the greenhouses in the 1950's,
and tanks to hold waste oil for burning were built in the 1960's.
When the greenhouse business declined, the owner of the site
began collecting, reselling, and disposing of the waste oil,
much of which contained PCBs and other hazardous materials.
The State of Ohio initiated action against the site owner in
1979 for air and water pollution violations. In late 1980, EPA
evaluated the need for remedial action at the site and in 1982
undertook an emergency action, which included removing 302,000
gallons of oil, treating 430,000 gallons of contaminated water,
and solidifying 205,000 gallons of sludge. Potentially respon-
sible parties (PRPs) removed another 250,000 gallons of oil
wastewater in 1985 and 1986. EPA issued an Administrative
Order of Consent to 12 PRPs between 1984 and 1986, requiring
their participation in the remediation process.
EPA divided remedial activities at the site into two operable
units and an overall site investigation. The first operable
unit addressed the incineration of contaminated water and PCB-
contaminated oils. The ROD for the second operable unit, which
focused on source material that remained on site, was signed
September 30, 1987. The overall site investigation still is
being conducted and will address ground-water, surface-water,
and soil contamination as well as the extent of dioxin
contamination.
17
-------
EXHIBIT 3
Page 2 of 6
Description of Site Work
When the overall RI was initiated, the site contained 34 tanks,
4 pits, and treatment and retention ponds. Preliminary sampling
indicated large amounts of seepage from tanks and unlined pits
into surrounding soils. Investigations also identified the
threat from contaminants leaching into ground and surface water,
including Cemetery Creek, which runs into the Grand River, a
source of drinking water for 25,000 residents.
Potentially responsible parties, under consent order, initiated
the study for the second operable unit in 1985 to characterize
the remaining on-site wastes. Results indicated that waste
materials still present at the site after emergency removal
actions posed a serious threat to human health and the environ-
ment through the threat of fire and exposure to PCBs. Major
contaminants of concern at the site are PCBs, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), all of which were present in high concentrations in
waste oil and surrounding soils.
Description of Feasibility Study
The Phased Feasibility Study (PFS) for the second operable
unit evaluated remedial alternatives for the removal of source
materials, including sludges, waste oils, wastewaters, and
contaminated soils (included in this operable unit because they
were a source of potential contamination of ground and surface
water). All attempts were made during the PFS to ensure that
the alternatives developed for this operable unit were consis-
tent with final remediation for the site. Remedial alternatives
developed included the following:
Alternative 1
Under this alternative, no remedial action
would be taken at the site. The threat to
public health and the environment would
remain.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 consists of solidifying all
of the liquid wastes and placing all of the
source material in a licensed TSCA or RCRA
facility as appropriate. All tanks would be
dismantled and taken off-site. The pit
area would be backfilled with onsite soils
and graded to preclude ponding.
18
-------
EXHIBIT 3
Page 3 of 6
No long term maintenance or monitoring at
the Laskin/Poplar Oil site would be required
under this alternative. However, the waste
would not be treated prior to landfilling at
the licensed facility. The long terra depend-
ability of any landfill is unknown. The cost
estimate for Alternative 2 is $4.2 million.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 combines on-site incineration
of the oils, sludges, and source soils with
off-site treatment of the wastewaters, decon-
tamination water, and scrubber water. The
incinerator ash and dismantled tanks would be
disposed in an off-site RCRA licensed facility.
If tests indicated that the ash could be
delisted, the ash could be sent to a sanitary
landfill. The excavated pit area would be
backfilled with onsite soils and graded to
preclude ponding.
This option would not require any long term
maintenance or monitoring at the site. All
source material would be treated to the
greatest extent practicable. The cost
estimate for Alternative 3 is $8.5 million.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 utilizes off-site incineration
for all oils, sludges, and highly contaminated
soils. All wastewaters and decontamination
water would be treated at an off-site treatment
facility. The tanks would be demolished and
disposed of at a licensed facility offsite.
The excavated areas would be backfilled with
on-site soils and graded to preclude ponding.
This option would not require any long term
maintenance or monitoring at the site. All
source material would be treated to the
greatest extent practicable. The cost estimate
for Alternative 4 is $12.2 million.
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 includes on-site incineration
of all oils and sludges as well as soils with
greater than 25 parts per million (ppm) PCBs
or 500 ppm total halogenated organics. The
remainder of soil excavated from the tank and
19
-------
EXHIBIT 3
Page 4 of 6
pit areas would be landfilled off-site at a
RCRA licensed hazardous waste facility along
with all dismantled tanks. All wastewaters,
decontamination water, and scrubber water
would be treated at an off-site treatment
facility. The excavated areas would be
backfilled with on-site soils and graded to
preclude ponding.
This alternative would not require any long
term maintenance or monitoring at the site.
The most highly contaminated source material
would be permanently treated. However, the
soils that would be landfilled, which comprise
roughly one-half of the source material, would
not be treated. The off-site disposal of waste
without treatment is the least favored option
under SARA. The cost of Alternative 5 is
$5.8 million.
With the exception of no action (Alternative
1), all of the alternatives would effectively
and permanently minimize the danger to the
public health and the environment at the site
area through the removal of the contaminated
material.
The use of an off-site landfill (Alternatives
2 and 5) is conventional, easy to implement,
and transfers the operation and maintenance
to the owner/operator of the landfill. The
most significant disadvantage of this option
is that it does not treat the contaminants,
so there is no reduction in toxicity, volume,
or mobility. It also may be difficult to main-
tain the long term integrity of hazardous waste
landfills as required by the U.S. EPA's off-
site policy. The off-site disposal of contami-
nated materials without treatment is the
least preferred option under SARA.
The off-site incineration of the source mate-
rials (Alternative 4) offers the advantage of
permanently destroying the contaminants in
the waste material and the soils. It is a
proven technology that transfers operation
and maintenance to the owner/operator of the
incinerator facility. One of the most signi-
ficant disadvantages of this alternative is
implementability. The material must be pack-
aged in small fiber drums for transportation.
20
-------
EXHIBIT 3
Page 5 of 6
The facilities available have commitments to
their regular clients which control when and
at what rates the source material can be taken
care of. In addition, a number of off-site
hazardous waste incinerators have shown a
reluctance to accept the waste material due
to high levels of lead found in some of the
sludges. Transportation of the waste to an
off-site facility increases both the cost of
this alternative and the risks posed to the
public by movement of contaminated materials
on the highways.
As with off-site incineration/ on-site
incineration (Alternatives 3 and 5) would
utilize a proven technology to permanently
destroy the contaminants in the source material.
The advantages of this alternative are that
the packaging requirements necessary for off-
site incineration would be avoided, and all
material could be processed in one year or
less once the incinerator begins operation.
This alternative also meets the goal of SARA
of implementing a remedial action which incor-
porates treatment rather than land disposal
where practicable.
A comparison of the alternatives on the basis
of protectiveness of public health and the
environment shows that on-site and off-site
incineration provide a high level of protec-
tion. Alternatives which use a high degree
of landfilling provide an equal level of
protection in the short run. The long run
dependability of landfills, however, is unknown.
There would be no beneficial impacts associated
with the no action alternative.
Any detrimental environmental effects associ-
ated with the waste and soil removal operations
would essentially be the same for each alter-
native except the no action alternative.
These short term negative impacts could be
minimized using proper construction methods.
The PFS identified the Federal and State applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs) that the remedial action
must meet, consistent with the requirements of CERCLA. One
technology considered for use on the site was on-site contain-
ment of the wastes. However, because the RCRA land disposal
restrictions were considered ARARs, this option was not consi-
dered further. Other ARARs identified for this site included
21
-------
EXHIBIT 3
Page 6 of 6
RCRA thermal destruction, incinerator, and off-site transporta-
tion regulations; Ohio Clean Air Act limits on incinerator
emissions; and Ohio regulations for the off-site transportation
of hazardous waste.
The State of Ohio and the U.S. EPA expressed
preference for remedial actions that would
provide destruction of hazardous constituents
in lieu of transporting untreated wastes to a
RCRA approved location. Section 121(b)(l) of
SARA states "Remedial actions in which treat-
ment permanently and significantly reduces the
volume, toxicity or mobility of the hazardous
substances/ pollutants, and contaminants is a
principal element, are to be preferred over
remedial actions not involving such treatment.
The off-site transport and disposal of hazar-
dous substances or contaminated materials
without such treatment should be the least
favored alternative remedial action where
practicable treatment technologies are avail-
able ."
Public comment on the RI/FS was received during a public
availability session, a public meeting, and through written
comments. Residents and local officials supported the selected
remedy discussed below.
Description of Selected Remedy
The remedy selected was on-site incineration of all oils, sludges,
and contaminated soils and the off-site treatment of contaminated
waters (Alternative 3). This alternative uses a proven technology
(i.e., incineration), and, because contaminated materials are
destroyed it satisfies CERCLA's preference for permanent solutions
and use of treatment technologies. The remedy also does not involve
the off-site transportation of hazardous materials (i.e., the oils,
sludges, and contaminated soils) before treatment; when implemented,
it will provide a high level of protection of human health and the
environment. The remedy is also expected to meet all ARARs for
this operable unit. The State of Ohio was consulted during the
remedy selection process and concurred with the chosen alternative.
i
«
22
------- |