Washington. DC 20460
ER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Num&er
9355.3-07
Z Originator Information
1
• I
M«it Code
OS-700
Office
OPBR
..*
Telephone Cod*
382-2180
Kesuj.cs or FYB8 Record of Decision Analysis
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
To transmit the results of the draft OERR/OWPE analysis of FY88
Records of Decision (RODS) and to outline goals, based on the
results of this analysis, which will promote ROD consistency and quality
and ensure that the remedial program is being implemented in a manner that is
3. Keywords consistent with SARA.
64. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directives)? I III
I I No | | Yes Wh«t directive (numb*.
We)
6. Dots It Supplement Previous Oirecttve(s)?
No
Yes What Directive (number. We)
7. Oran Level
A-SJgnedbyAA/OAA [ | 8 - Signed by Office Director C - For Review 1 Comment [ [ 0 - ft Devetopment
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters? I IYM
No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Formst Standards.
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
Betti VanEpps
10. Name and Title of Approving Official
Henry L. Longest -v
Date
5-1-89
Date
5-1-89
EPA Form 1315*17 (Rev. S-«7) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER 0
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Results of FY 88 Record of Decisi
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive ft 9355.3-07
MAY 1 1989
alysis
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedia
Bruce M. Diamond, Director._
Office of Waste Programs En
onse
cement
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Purpose:
To transmit
FY 88 Records of
the results of this
the results of the draft OERR/OWPE analysis of
Decision (RODs) and to outline goals, based on
analysis, which will promote ROD consistency
and quality and ensure that the remedial program is being
implemented in a manner that is consistent with SARA.
Background:
Over the past several months, the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR) and the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement^ (OWPE) have undertaken an analysis of RODs signed
during FY fffc. The analysis was performed by Regional
Coordinators- in OERR and OWPE who reviewed 79 of the 152 RODs
signed in FY 88. The RODs were selected to ensure a
representative sample of fund and enforcement lead RODs. It is
important to note that the study was not a review of the
remedial decisions made, but rather it was an analysis of whether
the RODs adequately documented these decisions in a manner that
was consistent with established guidance. In addition, the
a-nalysis focused on determining trends in alternatives and
selected remedies.
-------
Objective:
The analysis was intended to serve several purposes.
First, it expanded on an initial OWPE review of draft RODs
performed during the second half of FY 88 which indicated several
potential areas for improvement in ROD quality. Second, it was
designed to be a tool to help Headquarters and Regional
management improve RODs by enabling them to gauge past
performance and trends in FY 88 RODs. The information was also
compiled for the purpose of strengthening future enforcement
actions.
Results and Implementation;
In FY 88, we signed more than twice the number of RODs
signed in FY 87 and the number of enforcement lead RODs increased
150%. As data in the accompanying table indicate, these RODs
reflect an increase in the selection of treatment based remedies;
treatment was used as a principal element of 72% of final source
control actions as compared to 61% in FY 87. In addition, 76 of
the RODs signed in FY 88 were final RODs which authorize the last
action required prior to site deletion from the NPL.
In FY 88, we were incorporating the draft "Guidance on
Preparing Superfund Decision Documents" (ROD Guidance) issued
March 1988 into RODs. Of the 79 RODs reviewed as part of the FY
88 ROD Analysis, 64 followed the draft ROD Guidance format with
no major deviations. This is a significant step toward
standardization of our decision documents, a key to achieving
consistency. We expect improvement in this area in FY 89 since,
unlike in the past, the ROD Guidance has been available during
the entire fiscal year.
One of our goals for FY 89 is continued improvement in ROD
quality and consistency. RODs that clearly describe remedies and
explain the rationale for their selection facilitate all other
facets of the remedial process. Equally as important, high
quality, nationally consistent RODs clear the way to achieving
RD/RA settlements and to taking unilateral enforcement actions.
Results of the FY 88 ROD Analysis will be presented in
three section*: ROD documentation, trends in the development of
alternatives^ and remedy selection. Each section also includes
goals, baa«d on the results, to improve ROD consistency and
quality and Headquarters initiatives to help achieve these goals
in FY 89.
-------
ROD Documentation
Based on the analysis, there are several areas which
deserve special attention in preparing and reviewing FY 89 RODs.
Inclusion of the Statutory Determinations. All FY 89 RODs
must conclude with a section which discusses how the
selected remedy fulfills the four statutory determinations
and the preference for treatment as a principal element.
EPA's overall rationale for decision making must be included
in the discussion of the statutory determination that
permanent solutions and treatment to the maximum extent
practicable have been used. Approximately half of the RODs
reviewed included a well-documented, complete discussion of
EPA's rationale for decision making. In the others, there
were varying levels of documentation and completeness.
Alternative Analysis and the Nine Criteria. All FY 89
RI/FSs and RODs should use the nine evaluation criteria to
analyze alternatives, as nearly 80% of the RODs reviewed
did. Specifically, the comparative analysis of alternatives
presented in the RI/FS should be included in the ROD, and
may be condensed or augmented as necessary. Several of the
FY 88 RODs reviewed omitted a comparative analysis or relied
exclusively on tables which used symbols (i.e, + ,-) to
compare alternatives. Such tables are useful as decision
aids but alone may not be sufficient to explain EPA's
reasons for supporting a particular remedy.
ARARs Identification. A listing of all major ARARs should
be included in the discussion of the statutory
determination that ARARs have been attained. Additionally,
since ARARs will frequently play a role in our decision
making at sites, it is important that we list major ARARs in
the description of various alternatives in the ROD. As
appropriate to the response, this frequently includes RCRA
Land Disposal Restrictions and Closure regulations and Safe
Drinking Water Act MCLs. 70% of the RODs reviewed listed
major ARARs in the description of alternatives. In their
review of draft RODs, OWPE observed some tendency to include
as ARABa various requirements which are not ARARs. It is
important that we differentiate between ARARs and "to be
considered" requirements, which are not ARARs. Regions are
encouraged to work closely with all EPA Regional program
offices and the Office of Regional Counsel, the States, and
Headquarters in identifying and screening potential ARARs
during the RI/FS.
Documentation of Risk and Cleanup Levels. All RODs must
include a section which describes the results of the
Baseline Risk Assessment. This section should clearly
present the current and potential risk posed by the site.
-------
4
We must assure there is a potential risk or endangerment to
human health or the environment in order to justify remedial
action and this must be documented in the ROD. In addition,
61 of the RODs reviewed presented performance standards as
part of the description of alternatives or selected remedy.
The omission of cleanup goals and the lack of specification
of a point of compliance for these goals hinders the
transition into design and may adversely impact
negotiations for PRP conduct of the selected remedy.
Headquarters is currently committed to several initiatives
which will aid us in improving ROD documentation. The ROD
Guidance has been revised; an interim final version will be
issued in April. Over the next several months, Headquarters
staff in OERR and OWPE will conduct one day Region specific ROD
Writing Workshops which will be tailored to include those topics
which will be useful to a particular Region. Finally, Regional
Coordinators in OERR and OWPE continue to review draft RODs and
Proposed Plans and provide input to the Regions to help ensure
national consistency.
Trends in the Development of Alternatives
As part of the ROD Analysis, we also examined the
alternatives which were analyzed in detail and described in the
ROD. This was done to determine the trends in the types of
alternatives being evaluated in detail. In general, 24 of the
RODs reviewed evaluated a range of source control alternatives,
from containment through full-scale treatment. This is
consistent with our chief goal of effective long-term protection
as outlined in the proposed revisions to the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) .
Another of our goals for FY 89 Feasibility Studies (FSs)
and RODs is to generally decrease the number of alternatives
being carried through screening and into the detailed analysis of
alternatives. On the average, the 50 source control RODs
reviewed included 4 treatment alternatives and 3 containment
alternatives which were evaluated in detail. The number of
alternatives evaluated in detail was as high as 17. One reason
for this is,.the tendency evident in many FSs to develop several
alternative^ for each area of a site requiring remedial action
and to theff^coabine these alternatives into large matrices which
include vacijm* combinations of these remedies for each area of
the site. The large numbers of alternatives in such matrices
make it very difficult to do an adequate description and
comparison of alternatives. Where appropriate/ screen
alternatives rigorously to cut down on the work involved in
evaluating a large number of alternatives. For large sites with
many distinct areas of contamination which are not interrelated,
consider evaluating and comparing a limited range of alternatives
for each area separately.
-------
At other sites, more rigorous screening will also help to
reduce the number of alternatives. When it is obvious that
complete containment of waste is not appropriate, this
alternative can be eliminated prior to detailed analysis. This
is consistent with our expectations, outlined in the proposed
revisions to the NCP, that containment may be most appropriate
for wastes that pose relatively low long-term threats or where
treatment is impracticable.
In addition, we should streamline the number of
alternatives evaluated in detail for interim action RODs.
Interim actions RODs are an important way to implement the
proposed NCP's "bias for action" and as such should be
streamlined and limited in scope. An average of 6 alternatives
were evaluated in detail in the 11 interim action RODs reviewed.
Decreasing this number will streamline these actions as well as
reduce our workload as we document our interim action decisions.
The goals outlined above must be met while maintaining our
commitment to identifying and evaluating innovative technologies.
At present, Headquarters is working on a "Selection of Remedy
Guidance" which provides additional clarification of final remedy
selection using the balancing criteria. In addition, Regional
Coordinator review of FSs will, in part, be focused on
streamlining the alternatives being analyzed in detail.
Remedy Selection
Our goal for the selection of remedies is to continue to
increase the number and types of innovative technologies being
selected. Accordingly, we must increase the use of treatability
studies during the RI/FS process. Of the 50 source control RODs
reviewed, 4 RODs discussed treatability studies which had been
performed during the RI/FS; 15 discussed treatability studies
which were planned for RD. In others, treatability studies may
have been summarized in the RI/FS or administrative record. 16
of the RODs reviewed incorporated contingency remedies; this may
reflect the uncertainties which result from postponing
treatability studies to design.
On February 21, 1989, we transmitted OSWER Directive
9355.0-26K. "Advancing the Use of Treatment Technologies for
Superfund ffijtes." In it, we summarized Headquarters guidance and
activitie%j6nr encourage and support the use of innovative
treatment technologies. In addition to the treatability study
clearinghouse and the information transfer program outlined
therein, funds will be provided to finance treatability studies
during the RI/FS and, where necessary, SPMS targets may be
reconsidered to accommodate them.
-------
Conclusion
In conclusion, we must assure that RODs adequately document
the Agency's decisions and its ratiqnale for decision making.-
With continued improvement, we will reach our overall ROD goal of
consistent/ high quality documents which reflect good decisions
based on sound technical analyses necessary to meet the statutory
requirements of SA_RA. Past RODs which do not meet these goals
may be supplemented as you deem necessary. If you have any
questions on the FY 88 ROD Analysis or this directive, please
feel free to contact Russ Wyer at FTS 382-4632 or Lloyd Guerci at
FTS 382-4810. Staff members Lisa Carson (OERR, FTS 475-9758) and
Bill Eckroade (OWPE, FTS 475-8372) may also be contacted for more
information.
cc: Superfund Remedial and Enforcement Branch Chiefs
ARCs Contractors
TES Contractors
-------
FY1988 ROD TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDIATION "
Treatment Technology
Incineration/Thermal Destruction
Solidification/Stabilization
Vacuum Extraction
Volatilization/Soil Aeration
Soil Washing/Flushing
Biodegradation/Land Application
Other Treatment Technologies
Containment Only
Onsite
OflWe
Other Source Control Remedies
Temporary Storage
NON-SOURCE CONTROL REMEDIATION *
TECHNOLOGY SELECTIONS
Pump and Treatment
Aftemata Water Supply
Ofl*£*-
LflHMHi Treatment
Program
48
21
10
4
4
3
4
2
7
7
0
2
0
39
9
3
0
Enforcement
28
5
8
6
2
3
2
2
20
17
3
1
1
OCCURRENCES
38
4
2
3
Total
76
26
18
10
6 j
6
6
4
27
24
3
3
1
77
13
5
3
* Mere thai an* rwrady may b« MMOAK* wttfi a ift»
------- |