UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
; e c r £ 2 -
S C <- O w A S ' E A,NO 6V£OCENC' =>£3?CNS6
MAY 3 0 1991
OSWER Directive No. 9355.3-12
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Results of the FY'90 Record of D
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedi
Bruce M. Diamond, Director
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
TO: 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
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit the results of
the analysis of FY'90 Records of Decision (RODs) conducted by the
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) and the Office
of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE). This report focuses on the
quality of PY'90 ROD documentation and the consistency of FY'90
remedy selection decisions with the Superfund program
expectations as established in the National Contingency Plan
(NCP). The report examines trends in ROD quality and consistency
over the past two years and concludes with recommendations for
improving ROD quality in the future.
Pnntec cv •'ec.c-ec sac
-------
Background
In FY'88, OERR and OWPE performed an analysis of
RODs signed during the fiscal year; in FY'89, a much more
intensified effort was undertaken. The analyses focused on
whether the RODs adequately documented remedy selection decisions
in a clear, defensible manner consistent with established
guidance.1 These analyses were designed to provide Regional
management and staff with annual feedback on performance trends
in ROD quality, including strengths and areas needing
improvement. Clarity in the description of the remedy and the
rationale for selection of the remedy can help improve the
quality and consistency of RODs and assist in enforcement,
negotiation efforts, and ROD implementation. In addition, the
results provided Headquarters with feedback on areas in need of
additional guidance and/or clarification.
The FY'89 ROD Analysis provided an additional focus for the
evaluation of FY'89 RODs. This focus was on the consistency of
remedy selection decisions with the Superfund program's
expectations stated in the NCP (40 CFR 300.430(a)(1)(iii))
regarding the appropriate use of treatment, engineering controls
and institutional controls for source control actions, and the
types of remedies expected for contaminated ground water.
Additionally, the study evaluated consistency with the
expectation to use innovative technologies where appropriate.
The FY'89 consistency analysis brought to light the need to
provide a clearer definition of principal versus low-level
threats in the ROD. This definition is necessary for measuring
the consistency of remedies with the program expectations to
treat principal threats whenever practicable and to use
engineering controls when waste poses a low, long-term threat or
where treatment is impracticable. In order to make this
determination, contaminant concentrations and volumes need to be
linked to specific areas of the site that will be addressed.
This new documentation and consistency evaluation was
incorporated into the FY'90 ROD analysis on the basis of current
The Interim Final Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision
Documents (OSWER Directive No. 9355.3-02; October, 1989) and
related ROD Short Sheet (OSWER Directive 9335.3-02FS-1; May, 1989)
give basic information on ROD documentation. Additional
information on ROD documentation is found in guidance related to
the particular subject of the ROD section (e.g., Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund; December, 1989).
-------
guidance while further guidance is being issued in this area and
will be a standard component of the annual analysis of RODs.
The PY'90 ROD analysis included an evaluation of the
adequacy of ROD documentation in the core components of the ROD
(e.g., use of the nine criteria, documentation of each statutory
determination, etc.) and a more in-depth evaluation of particular
key items in the ROD such as ARARs, site risks, site threats, the
rationale for remedy selection, and key components of the
selected remedy. The FY'90 ROD analysis also provided a "new
focus" on which baseline data were collected for use in comparing
future ROD documentation. This new focus pertained to areas that
were the subject of new guidance during the past fiscal year or
are concepts under development to improve program efficiency
(i.e., documentation and/or consistency). The areas that were
examined in the "new focus" section are: clearly defining
principal and low-level threats; consistency with the PCBs
guidance; application of standard exposure assumptions; use of
treatability studies; application of ground water uncertainty
language in final and interim ground water RODs; and
environmental risks. Basic data from FY'90 RODs were collected
to provide a gauge to measure improvement in performance in FY'91
and future fiscal years and to assist in future guidance
development.
The FY'90 ROD Analysis was conducted on January 8-10,
1990. A total of 150 FY'90 RODs (with the exception of four RODs
that were not yet received by Headquarters) were reviewed by a
team of 54 representatives from Headquarters, the Regions and the
States. Each ROD was analyzed independently by two reviewers to
serve as a quality control check. Any differences were discussed
among the two reviewers in order to achieve consensus. RODs that
covered more than one site were counted as one ROD in the
analysis. ROD amendments were excluded from the analysis.
2Based on the results of the FY'39 ROD analysis, EPA
Headquarters identified the need for additional guidance on the
documentation of site risks and site threats. This guidance was
not issued in FY'90. The results of the FY'90 ROD analysis for
quality of documentation in these particular key areas should be
viewed on this basis. Guidance on documenting site risks is
currently being issued. Guidance providing clarification of the
definition* of principal and low-level threats stated in the NCP
is currently in draft for Agency review and is expected to be
issued in the Summer of 1991. Baseline data on defining principal
and low-level threats according to the review draft was collected
as part of the "new focus" section of this report and is being used
as a basis to measure improvement in FY'91 and beyond. It is
possible -that the majority of FY'91 RODs will not be impacted by
either of these guidances due to issuance dates.
-------
In the FY'90 ROD analysis (as in the FY'89 ROD analysis),
remedial actions were segregated into five categories: final
source control actions, interim source control actions, final
ground water actions, interim ground water actions, and no
action. This segregation was based on the fact that expectations
for these different types of decisions and their respective
documentation requirements vary. RODs which contained a source
control and a ground water component were evaluated for both
actions. The results reported in this directive on FY'90 ROD
documentation and consistency with superfund program expectations
relate to the documentation for final action components.
Findings of Analysis
Results of the analysis demonstrate that 75% (112/150) of
the FY'90 RODs addressed source control. Eighty-seven percent
(87%) (97/112) of these were final source control RODs, and the
remaining 13% (15/112) of the source control RODs were for
interim source control actions. Fifty-nine percent (59%)
(89/150) of the FY'90 RODs addressed ground water remediation.
Eighty-seven percent (87%) (77/89) of these RODs were final
ground water actions and the remaining 13% (12/89) of the ground
water RODs selected interim ground water actions. This
represents an increase in the number of all types of source
control and ground water RODs when compared with the number of
RODs signed in FY'89. Seven (7) FY'90 RODs (5% of the total
RODs) were no action RODs compared with 9% in FY'89. (See
Exhibit 1.)
The results of the FY'90 ROD analysis3 reported in this
directive relate to: 1) ROD documentation in core/essential
ROD components and in five key areas, 2) Consistency of Remedies
with Superfund Program Expectations, and 3) New Focus — Baseline
data for FY'91 RODs. Major findings for the first two areas
(i.e., ROD docvirentation and Consistency with Expectations) are
summarized in the body of the report while the New Focus
findings, background statistics and exhibits are found in the
attachment to the report. The report draws several comparisons
with FY'89 RODs (and with FY'88 to a lesser degree) where data
are available in the areas of ROD quality and consistency. The
Data collected for the FY'90 ROD analysis underwent a more
rigorous quality control procedure than that of FY'89, therefore,
the FY'90 data cannot be viewed as having an absolute direct
correlation with FY'89 data. The findings have been used to draw
general conclusions and examine general trends about strengths and
weaknesses in ROD quality. The findings and statistics should be
viewed as having some associated error due to the
subjectivity/interpretation of reviewers.
-------
final section of this report summarizes the major findings of the
study and highlights recommendations for FY'91 RODs.
KEY AREAS OF ROD DOCUMENTATION (ARARs, Site Threats, Site Risks,
Rational* for Remedy Selection, Key Components of the selected
Remedy)
Five key areas of ROD documentation were selected for a more
extensive analysis. ARARs, site threats and site risks were
selected because they were targeted as areas in need of
improvement in the FY'89 ROD Analysis. The rationale for remedy
selection was selected due to the importance in ensuring that the
rationale clearly summarizes how the selected remedy satisfies
the mandate outlined in SARA and the NCP in terms of the five
balancing criteria, and in providing a sound document for
enforcement negotiation efforts. Emphasis was placed on the
documentation of key components of the selected remedy because
providing this documentation will ensure a streamlined transition
between the ROD and remedial design.
ARARs Identification (Land Disposal Restrictions, RCRA Waste
Documentation. Closure. MCLs. non-zero MCLGs. CWA 404 and 40
CFR Appendix A* for Wetlands. Endangered Species Act.
Antidegradation)
Major Findings: Marked improvement over last year in
identifying ARARs for the selected remedy in the Statutory
Determinations section. Lists, citations and descriptions of
ARARs are greatly improved. Wetlands requirements for discharges
are being identified in the majority of cases. Identification of
the Endangered Species Act is much more frequent where these
species are encountered. Improvement was seen over last year in
addressing State ARARs for each alternative in source control
RODs, and State antidegradation statutes for surface water are
generally being applied correctly. Significant improvement was
seen in the documentation of MCLs or waivers from these ARARs for
ground water being restored to drinking water, and the
documentation of non-aero MCLGs5 as ARARs for non-carcinogens is
being provided.
Improvement im needed in identifying key ARARs for each
alternative; identifying RCRA waste; documenting ARARs for
440 CFR Appendix A contains the regulations that implement
the Executive Orders on Wetlands.
5The final NCP requires consideration of non-zero MCLGs for
non-carcinogens as potential ARARs when ground water is being
restored to drinking water.
-------
closure, residuals management/ and wetlands management; and
providing a determination of whether LDR is an ARAR.
of Human Health Risks
Major Findings: Some improvement over last year in ident-
ifying future land use, toxicity information and the relationship
of the baseline risk to the risk range, however, documentation of
site risks as a whole remains a priority area for improvement.
Rationale for Remedy Selection
Major Findings: The rationale for remedy selection
continues to be more clearly presented in terms of the five
primary balancing criteria.
Key Components of the Selected Remedy (Remediation Goals,
Risk Level Corresponding to Remediation Goals. Points of
Compliance. Management of Residuals)
Major Findings: slight improvement overall in documenting
key components of the selected remedy, especially management of
ground water residuals, however, clearer documentation is needed.
Defining Principal and Low-Level Threats
Major Findings: Principal and low-level threats need to be
more clearly defined.7
CORE/ESSENTIAL ROD DOCUMENTATION (Declaration, Site Location and
Description, Site History and Enforcement Activities, Highlights
of Community Participation, Scope and Role, Summary of Site
Characteristics, Description of Alternatives, Summary of the
Comparative Analysis, Description of the Selected Remedy,
Statutory Determinations)
The FY'90 ROD Analysis evaluated whether all sections of the
RODs provided core information consistent with established
guidance (see Footnote 1) . Documentation of core site
information is essential in providing an overview of site-
specific factors considered to select the best remedy for the
site. Documentation of core components and model language leads
to RODs that follow a logical sequence and are consistent across
regional boundaries.
'Additional guidance is being provided in this area. See
Footnote 2.
Additional guidance is being developed in this area. See
Footnote 2.
-------
Major Findings: Documentation of core parts of the ROD is
strong. Improvement over last year was seen in the use of the
nine criteria analysis. Improvement should be directed at the
description of alternatives section.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM EXPECTATIONS
The goal of the Superfund remedy selection process is to
select remedies that are protective of human health and the
environment, that maintain protection over time, and that
minimize untreated waste. The Superfund program expectations
contained in the NCP state that treatment is most likely to be
appropriate for materials comprising the principal threats posed
by a site, and that engineering controls are most likely to be
appropriate for materials that pose a low-level threat or where
treatment is impracticable. Institutional controls are expected
to be used to mitigate short-term impacts and/or as a supplement
to the engineering controls to aid in the long-term management of
materials that will remain on-site. Institutional controls
should not substitute for more active measures as the sole remedy
unless active measures are impracticable. Innovative
technologies are to be evaluated closely where there is a
reasonable belief that they may perform as well as or better than
conventional technologies with respect to reduction of toxicity,
mobility or volume, short-term impacts, or cost. Ground water is
to be returned to its beneficial uses within a reasonable
timeframe given particular site circumstances. All final
Superfund remedial actions are expected to be consistent with the
program goal and expectations unless an exceptional circumstance
exists.
Major Findings: Treatment is continually being selected in
source control RODs for materials comprising principal threats
posed by sites.
Engineering controls are being selected more frequently for
materials comprising low-level threats. Although low-level
threats are still being treated in some final source control
RODs, the action is justified on the basis of cost-effectiveness
or the n««4 to eliminate a ground water threat. Engineering
controls ooaprise the primary component of the remedy when there
are only low-level wastes, when treatment of principal threats is
impracticable, and/or when treatment is not cost-effective or is
prohibitive.
Institutional controls are being used much more frequently
as supplements to engineering controls for long-term management
in final source control RODS that will leave materials on-site.
Institutional controls are not being used as the primary
component of the remedy. Although not part of the Analysis for
Consistency with Program Expectations, the FY'90 ROD Analysis
-------
identified the need for improvement in documenting the party that
is responsible for assuring that institutional controls are
implemented and maintained.
A twofold increase occurred in the use of a combination of
treatment of principal threats with engineering and institutional
controls for treatment residuals and low concentration waste.
Ground water remedies remain consistent with program
expectations to restore ground waters to their beneficial uses,
or to prevent further migration of the plume or prevent exposure
where restoration is impracticable.
Use of innovative treatment technologies for source control
continues to increase substantially.
Conclusions and Recommendations for FY'91 RODs
In conclusion, the results of the FY'90 ROD Analysis show
overall continued improvement in our efforts to produce high-
quality RODs.
Significant improvement and/or strengths in ROD
documentation quality and in consistency of remedies with program
expectations are seen in the following areas:
1) Identification and description of ARARs in the
Statutory Determinations section;
2) Rationale for Remedy Selection;
3) Documentation of MCLs and non-zero MCLGs for ground
water alternatives;
4) Documentation of essential components of the ROD; and
5) Consistency of remedies selected with all Superfund
Program Expectations.
Improvement in 7Y'91 RODs should be focused on the following
areas:
1) Identification of key ARARs for each alternative
including residuals management, especially LDR and
closure;
2) Documentation of site risks;
3) • Designation of principal and low-level threats; and
8
-------
4) Documentation of key components of the selected remedy
(i.e., remediation goals, risk levels corresponding to
remediation goals, points of compliance, and management
of residuals).
Application of new guidance in areas of new focus (e.g.,
definitions of principal and low-level threats) will continue to
impact ROD quality and improve program efficiency- During the
FY'91 ROD Forums, Headquarters distributed a ROD checklist
(similar to the questionnaire used to evaluate FY'90 RODS) to be
used by Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) as an important quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) tool and a means to maintain
gains in FY'91 ROD quality and facilitate continuous improvement.
Individual assistance to RPMs will be available through the
Regional Coordinators for each Region.
ROD Forums
Headquarters will continue to assist Regional efforts to
enhance ROD quality by conducting the annual ROD Forums in each
Region. During the FY'91 ROD Forums, Headquarters distributed
revised short sheets reflecting the latest guidance. Most
importantly, we distributed the above-referenced ROD checklists
and conducted short presentations on areas with newly developed
guidance, including areas targeted for improvement based on ROD
analysis data and Regional requests.
If you have any questions about the FY'90 ROD Analysis,
please contact Sandra Panetta in the Remedial Operations and
Guidance Branch, Hazardous Site Control Division, OERR, at FTS-
398-8364.
Attachments
The policies set forth in this Directive are intended
solely as guidance. They are not intended, nor can they
be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any
party in litigation with the United States. EPA
officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in
this Directive, or to act at variance with the
Directive, on the basis of an analysis of specific
circumstances. The Agency also reserves the right to
change this Directive at any time without public notice.
-------
cc: Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Superfund Section Chiefs, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
Regional Counsel Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Bill White
Christian Holmes
Federal Facilities Branch Chiefs and Section Chiefs
10
-------
Attachment
KEY AREAS OF ROD DOCUMENTATION (ARARs, Site Threats, Site Risks,
Rationale for Remedy Selection, Key Components of the Selected
Remedy)
ARARs Identification (Land Disposal Restrictions. RCRA Waste
Documentation. Closure. MCLs. non-zero MCLGs. CWA 404 and 40
CFR Appendix A1 for Wetlands. Endangered Species Act.
Antidearadation) (See Exhibits 2A and 2B)
The ARARs that pertain to the selected remedy should be
documented in the Statutory Determinations section of the ROD,
along with the statutory finding. Nearly all final action RODs
for both fiscal years stated the statutory finding to comply with
(or waive) ARARs, and ninety-percent (90%) of the final source
control RODs and 84% of the final ground water RODs provided the
list of ARARs that will be met for the selected remedy (compared
to about 70% in FY'89 final source control and final ground water
RODs). Key ARARs were documented for each alternative in about
half of the FY'90 and FY'89 final source control RODs (compared
to 70% in FY'88). A determination of the presence of RCRA waste
or waste sufficiently similar to RCRA waste was provided in about
half the FY'90 final source control RODs and in about 25% of the
FY'90 final ground water RODs (compared to about half of the
FY'89 final source control and final ground water RODs). Half of
the FY'90 and FY'89 final source control RODs (and the FY'90
final ground water RODs) that identified the generation of
residuals also provided the ARARs for residuals management.
about half of all the final action RODs provided a determination
of the applicability or relevance and appropriateness of the LDRs
as ARARs in each of the two fiscal years. For sites that
involved excavation, capping or disposal, and where RCRA closure
requirements are potential ARARs, the requirements were
documented in half of these RODs in each of the two fiscal years.
For ground water that is being restored to drinking water, MCLs
and non-zero MCLGs were documented as ARARs or waived in 82% of
the FY'90 RODs, compared with about 50% of these RODs in FY'89
that documented MCLs as ARARs.
For sites where endangered species were encountered, the
Endangered Species Act was identified as an ARAR in 60% of the
final source control RODs (and 50% of the final ground water
RODs), compared with 25% last year. The CWA Section 404 was
identified as an ARAR in 78% of the FY'90 source control RODs and
50% of the final ground water RODs where discharge to a wetlands
was a component of the remedy. Fifty-six percent (56%) of the
FY'90 source control RODs identified 40 CFR Appendix A as an ARAR
in RODs that involved an action within the wetland. State ARARs
140 CFR Appendix A contains the regulations that implement
the Executive Orders on Wetlands.
-------
were addressed where pertinent in 93% of the FY'90 final source
control RODs and 91% of the FY'90 final ground water RODs,
compared to 86% and 83% of the FY'89 RODs, respectively. Where a
State surface water antidegradation statute was identified as an
ARAR, it was applied prospectively to the action being taken in
80% and 67% of the final source control and final ground water
RODs, respectively. State antidegradation statutes for ground
water were applied prospectively in 18% of the RODs that
identified them.
Documentation of Human Health Risks (See Exhibits 3A and 3B)
All RODs for final actions should summarize the results of
the baseline risk assessment conducted for the site, including
the results of the exposure and toxicity assessments and the
pathway-specific risks. The ROD should clearly identify both the
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks for the populations at
risk for the site. The ROD should clearly define current and
future land use scenarios and the reasonable exposure pathways
affecting each population group identified. The baseline risk
for the site should be based on the reasonable maximum exposure
scenario. Significant sources of uncertainty should be
discussed.
The current use of the land was identified in 84% of the
final source control RODs in FY'90 (compared to 91% in FY'89),
while the future land use was provided in 58% of the final source
control RODs (compared to 38% in FY'89). The basis for current
land use was provided in 48% of the FY'90 final source control
RODs (compared to 55% in FY'89). The basis for future land use
was provided in about one-fourth of the FY'90 final source
control RODs (compared to about on-fifth in FY'89).
Documentation of the current and potential beneficial use of the
ground water was provided in 85% and 77% of the final ground
water RODs (compared with 100% and 96%, respectively in FY'89).
Populations at risk were identified in 73% of the final
source control RODs and 83% of the final ground water RODs each
fiscal year. Reasonable exposure pathways affecting each
population group were identified in about 80% of all the final
action RODs, compared to about 90% last fiscal year. Basic
toxicity information (e.g., cancer potency factors, reference
doses) related to the contaminants within each pathway was
provided in about 60% of the FY'90 final action RODs,
representing a 20% increase from FY'89. Chronic daily intake
factors, and the assumptions under which they were calculated
(e.g., exposure point concentrations, etc.) were provided in less
than half of the final action RODs for both fiscal years.
Pathway-specific risks (or the hazard indices) for direct
ingestion were documented in about half of the final action RODs
in each o'f the two fiscal years. Approximately 65% of the final
-------
action RODs documented the baseline risk, also representing a 15%
increase over FY'89. About thirty-five percent (35%) of the
FY'90 final source control, RODs and 45% of the final ground
water RODs identified that the baseline risk is based on the
reasonable maximum exposure scenario. Approximately 80% of the
final action RODs specifically documented that the baseline risk
was greater than the carcinogenic risk range, compared to about
70% last year. Where it was not clear that the risk range was
exceeded, all of the final ground water RODs and about half of
the final source control RODs provided additional justification
for taking action. Uncertainty associated with risk was provided
in 35% of the FY'90 final action RODs compared to 43% of the
FY'89 final source control RODs and about 30% of the FY'89 final
ground water RODs.
The summary of site risks section of the ROD should state
that imminent and substantial endangerment to public health,
welfare, or, the environment may occur if no action is taken at
the site. This statement appeared in the declaration of about
30% more final source control RODs in FY'90 than in FY'89, and in
the summary of site risks section of over 12% more final source
control RODs in FY'90; it appeared in summary of site risks
section of 45% of the FY'90 final ground water RODs.
In the description of alternatives section, the ROD should
explain how the selected remedy addresses the risks from each
exposure pathway contributing to the site risks. Less than half
of the FY'89 and FY'90 final source control RODs stated that the
risks will be reduced to within an acceptable risk range for each
alternative. However, in the comparative analysis sections Of
the final action RODs for both years, about 75% of the RODs
provided this information under the discussion of "Overall
Protection" and about 64% provided it in the statutory
determinations section of the ROD under the "Protection of Human
Health and the Environment" determination, compared to about 70%
last year.
Rationale for Remedy Selection (See Exhibits 4A and 4B1
A marked increase in ROD quality is noted in providing
adequate documentation of the rationale for remedy selection
since FY'88 (50% of final source control RODs) through FY'89 (77%
of final source control RODs and 37% of final ground water RODs)
and in FY'90, the discussion under "Utilization of Permanent
Solutions and Treatment to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)"
stated the rationale clearly in terms of a balancing of the nine
criteria in 76% of FY'90 final source control RODs and in 67% of
the final ground water RODs. Approximately 90% of the final
action RODs provided a statement that the selected remedy meets
the statutory requirement to utilize permanent solutions to the
MEP or, states that treatment is impracticable.
-------
Kev Components of the Selected Remedy fRemediation Goals,
Risk Level Corresponding to Remediation Goals. Points of
Compliance. Management of Residuals) (See Exhibits 5A and B)
Documenting key items in the description of the selected
remedy will ensure that the ROD provides critical criteria
necessary to facilitate negotiations and enforcement activities,
and meet design needs. Cleanup goals were provided for all
contaminants of concern in 66% of the FY'90 final action RODs,
compared to 62% of the FY'89 final source control RODs and 87% of
the FY'89 final ground water) RODs. The basis for remediation
goals was documented in 88% of the FY'90 (and 75% of the FY'89)
final source control RODs and 94% of the FY'90 final ground water
RODs. The basis for soil cleanup levels was provided 91% of the
time in FY'90 RODs (and 100% of the time in FY'89 RODs), where
applicable, and the level to which ground water will be treated
was provided in 69% of the FY'90 ground water RODs that involve
extraction and treatment. State ARARs were documented as the
remediation goals in about 13% and 33% of the FY'90 final source
control and final ground water RODs, respectively. However, of
the FY'90 final source control and final ground water RODs that
documented State ARARs as the remediation goals, it was not clear
that these requirements meet the CERCLA definition of a State
ARAR (i.e., promulgated and more stringent than Federal
requirements) in the majority of these RODs (i.e., 11% and 33% of
the final source control and final ground water RODs,
respectively). Risk levels corresponding to remediation goals
were provided in about 40% of the final source control RODs for
both fiscal years and in 49% of the FY'90 final ground water
RODs.
Points of compliance were provided in 49% of the FY'90
final source control RODs (compared to 33% last year) The area
of attainment was provided in 58% of the FY'90 final ground water
RODs. The management of residuals was addressed in 68% of the
FY'90 and 48% of the FY'89 final source control RODs,
respectively, that involved generation of residuals and in 73% of
the FY'90 final ground water RODs.
Defining Principal and Low-Level Threats (See Exhibit 6)
For sites that included discrete areas thought to comprise
the principal threats posed by the site, approximately 64% of the
FY'90 final source control RODs clearly defined the principal
threats at the site according to current NCP definitions,
compared to 80% in FY'89. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of these
RODs also provided the area or volume of the contamination and
almost all (99%) identified the concentrations of the
contaminants (compared to 100% for each last year). Twenty-nine
percent (29%) of the FY'90 final source control RODs with areas
that pose a low-level threat defined these areas and 37% of the
descriptions also provided the area or volume of the
-------
SSVof?1 }°n (comPare<* with 49% and 60%, respectively, in
FY 89) , while 65% also provided the concentrations of the
contaminants of concern (compared with 100% in FY'89).
CORE/ESSENTIAL ROD DOCUMENTATION (Declaration, Site Location and
Description, Site History and Enforcement Activities, Highlights
of Community Participation, Scope and Role, Summary of site
Characteristics, Description of Alternatives, Summary of the
Comparative Analysis, Description of the selected Remedy,
Statutory Determinations)
Considerable data were collected from FY'90 final action
RODs on each of the above-noted areas of ROD documentation. The
data demonstrate that the majority of FY'90 final action RODs
(generally over 80%) provide the essential information in each of
the ROD components. Particular strengths were seen in: the
description of the site, where over 90% of the final source
control RODs and over 80% of the final ground water RODs provided
adequate documentation; history and enforcement activities were
adequately described in nearly all of the final source control
and final ground water ROD; highlights of community
participation were documented well in almost all of the final
source control and final ground water RODs; the scope and role
section adequately described the overall role of the remedial
action within the site cleanup strategy in greater than 90% of
the final action RODs; all final source control RODs adequately
documented the contaminated media in the summary of site
characteristics section and 96% of the final ground water RODs
provided an appropriate characterization of the ground water;
present worth costs in the description of alternatives were
provided in the majority of FY'90 final action RODs; the
comparative analysis was documented using the nine criteria with
a paragraph for each, indicating the major advantages and
disadvantages of each in 93% of the FY'90 final source control
RODs, compared to 92% in FY'89 and 80% in FY'88; cost-
effectiveness was adequately discussed in 91% of all the final
action RODs in the statutory determinations section.
Areas of essential documentation in final action RODs that
could be targeted for improvement (i.e., generally less than 70%
provided adequate documentation) include the description of
alternative*. The description of each alternative should allow
the reactor of the ROD to fully track all waste identified on the
site to its final destination, including residuals. While there
was improvement in tracking the waste in final source control
RODs, management of residuals was not provided in the majority of
the RODs that did not provide a complete description of the waste
movement/disposition.
For sites with treatment alternatives, the ROD should
contain information on the treatment level to be attained as well
-------
as the basis (e.g., ARARs, treatability variance standards, or
risfc-based levels) for selection for the treatment level. The
majority of the FY'90 final source control RODs with treatment
alternatives did not provide the treatment level and the basis
for selection of the treatment level in the description of
alternatives. For sites with containment alternatives, the
description of the alternative should specify the type of closure
that will be implemented, the estimated quantity of untreated
waste and/or treatment residuals remaining and the degree of
hazard remaining. Many FY'90 final source control RODs with
containment alternatives did not include this information in the
description of alternatives. About one third of the RODs
contained information about treatment levels and/or closure in
the description of the selected remedy if the alternative was
selected.
Other aspects of the description of alternatives in FY'90
final ground water RODs that could be more clearly documented
include identification of the classification of ground water, the
remediation goals, the estimated timeframe for restoration, and
provisions for monitoring the ground water once the restoration
is complete. Costs for the selected remedy in all final action
RODs could be improved.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM EXPECTATIONS
(Sea Exhibit 7 for FY'90 data)
In both fiscal years 89 and 90, all of the final source
control RODs that identified principal threats also identified
that the material comprising the principal threats posed by the
site will be treated, or contained where treatment is
impracticable. Waste defined as comprising a low-level threat
will also be treated in 24% of the FY'90 cases (compared to 33%
of the FY'89 cases); all of these cases also involve treatment of
principal throats or are treating waste to eliminate a threat to
ground water. Low-level waste will be contained in the remaining
cases, which increased from 67% in FY'89 to about 76% in FY'90.
For sites involving the use of engineering controls as a primary
component (47% of the FY'90 final source control RODs compared to
24% of th« FY'89 final source control RODs), treatment is not a
component in: 43% of the cases because there are only low-level
threats (i.«., no hot spots); 39% of the cases because treatment
of high-level threats is impracticable (e.g., due to waste
composition, type of contaminants, combination of contaminants,
etc)• and 43% of the cases because treatment is not cost-
eft ective2. Engineering controls were selected on the basis of
cost-effectiveness was in all of the cases: (1) 50% of these
cases involved large volumes of low-level waste; (2) 30% of
2These cases are not mutually exclusive.
6
-------
these cases involved treatment costs that were completely
prohibitive, and; (3) 17% of these cases involved large volumes
of high-level waste.
Use of institutional controls as part of the remedy for
sites with waste remaining on-site increased in final source
control RODs from 58% in FY'89 to 80% in FY'90. In all of the
FY'90 cases the institutional controls are to be used as a
supplement to the treatment and/or engineering controls. In
FY'89, active response measures were impracticable in two cases.
Eighty percent (80%) of the FY'90 final source control RODs
(compared to 41% in FY'89) combined treatment of principal
threats with engineering and institutional controls for treatment
residuals and low-level waste. While not part of the evaluation
for consistency with superfund program expectations, the FY'90
ROD Analysis identified that 13% of the final source control RODs
and 15% of the final ground water RODs stated who is responsible
for implementing and maintaining institutional controls.
Ground water restoration to beneficial uses was selected in
99% (76/77) of the FY'90 RODs that included a final ground water
remediation component, compared to 97% (62/64) of the FY'89 RODs
of this type. The remaining 1% (1/77) of the FY'90 final ground
water RODs used gradient control to prevent contamination of the
drinking water aquifer.
The use of innovative treatment technologies in source
control RODs that selected treatment has increased from 26%
(7/27) in FY'87, to 40% (28/69) in FY'88, to 51% (39/76) in
FY'89, and to approximately 61% (39/64) in FY'90 . In addition,
seven (7) innovative ground water treatment technologies were
selected in FY'90 (compared to six (6) in FY'89).
NEW FOCUS — BASELINE DATA FOR FY*91 RODS
The following information is based on data that was
collected for the purpose of establishing a baseline in order to
measure the effectiveness of newly developed policy and/or
guidance in future RODs (i.e., FY'91 and future fiscal years).
The areas selected pertain either to new guidance that was issued
during tb» FY'90 or are concepts that are currently under
development and will be the subject of guidance to be issued in
the future. Qualitative results based on the data are being
3The number of innovative treatment technologies selected in
FY'90 RODs is an estimate and should not be quoted as the precise
count. Actual numbers will be developed for the FY'90 ROD Annual
Report which will be issued in the Summer of 1991. Numbers quoted
for previous years are from the ROD Annual Report for that year.
-------
presented in order to increase awareness to these program changes
and improve implementation efficiency.
ClearlV Defining principal and Low-Level Threats
Although policy regarding the definitions of principal and
low-level threats currently is being developed, the information
is expected to differ little from that which is in draft. The
purpose of the policy is to clarify and standardize the use of
the terms that are stated in the NCP. The terms serve primarily
as tools to facilitate the consideration of the NCP expectations
when developing and evaluating remedial alternatives on a site-
specific basis. Clarification and additional guidance is
expected to be available in the third quarter of FY'91.
Baseline Findings: Improvement in using the principal and
low-level threat definitions to describe waste at a site should
be directed at providing a clearer rationale for waste management
strategies based on toxicity, mobility, and volume of
contaminants. Ground water should not be described as a
principal threat or low-level threat; the NCP established
different expectations for addressing groundwater based on the
potential beneficial uses (i.e., the concept of principal vs.
low-level threats relates to source material and ground water
generally is not considered to be a source, although it may be
discussed as posing the primary risk at the site).
Consistency With PCBs Guidance
"Guidance on Remedial Actions for Sites Contaminated with
PCBs" (OSWER Directive No. 9355.4-01) and a summary short sheet
were issued in August, 1990. The guidance describes the
recommended approach for evaluating and remediating Superfund
sites with PCB contamination. The guidance provides starting
point cleanup levels and potential ARARs that are pertinent to
Superfund sites with PCB contamination. As stated in the
guidance, it is not a strict "recipe" for taking action at PCB-
contaminated sites, but it should be used as a guide for
developing remedial actions for PCBs.
Baseline Findings: 7Y*90 RODS generally followed the PCBs
Guidance. Bern* deviation from the action levels was seen based
on the u*e of other standards. Improvement in following the
guidance ehould be directed at providing additional site-specific
justification for the use of other standards when they are less
stringent than the guidance levels.
Application of Standard Default Exposure Factors
Standard exposure assumptions are being developed by the
Agency. Some figures were included in the Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
8
-------
Manual (EPA/540/1-89/002) issued in December, 1989. Additional
figures are currently being developed and issued.
Baseline Findings: Default exposure factors currently are
being used ia a large number of final action RODS. Alternate
values should be documented clearly.
Application of Ground Water Uncertainty Language
"Suggested ROD Language for Various Ground Water Remediation
Options" (OSWER Directive No. 9283.1-03) was issued on October
10, 1990. This directive suggests that the ROD reflect the
amount of relative uncertainty believed to be associated with
achieving remediation goals at a particular ground water site.
The standard language provided in the directive may be employed,
when appropriate, to correspond to site-specific remediation
scenarios. The directive also recommends consideration of
various approaches to planning and implementing ground water
remediation, specifically, initiating early or interim action to
prevent further migration of contaminants.
Baseline Findings: Ground water uncertainty language is
being used in final and interim ground water RODS, and increased
usage of the language is expected. Final ground water RODS
should provide a discussion of the uncertainty language and a
basis for the uncertainty associated with achieving remediation
goals; provisions for modifying the remedial action as it is
designed/ implemented/operated; and a description of what action
will be taken if portions of the ground water cannot be restored.
Contingency remedies should include a statement about the need to
waive ARARs if they cannot be achieved, provisions for
institutional controls to prevent access and engineering controls
to contain the plum* if needed, and a provision for the
evaluation of innovative technologies as they are developed.
grcvnd water RODS are clearly presenting the purpose
for the interim action. The basis for early action containment
is being provided. Improvement in interim action RODS should be
directed at providing the basis for the interim action to
evaluate the final action and providing the time frame for
operating the interim action (i.e., indicating when an evaluation
of the fiaal action will be made and a final ROD for the ground
water issued) .
Environmental Risks
Guidance on evaluating environmental risks was issued in the
"Risk Assessment Guidance for Super fund: Volume II -
Environmental Evaluation Manual; Interim Final" (EPA/540/1-
89/001) in March, 1989. The guidance describes an overall
framework for considering environmental effects at Superfund
sites. The environmental evaluation (or ecological assessment)
-------
at Superfund sites should provide decision makers with
information on threats to the natural environment associated with
contaminants or with actions designed to remediate the site.
Guidance on documenting the results of the ecological assessment
in the ROD has not been issued by the Agency.
Baseline Findings: Guidance is needed on documenting the
results of the ecological assessment or providing a rationale for
not performing the assessment. Particular attention should be
given to comparing surface water samples with the Federal Water
Quality Criteria (WQC) or State Water Quality Standards (WQS) as
appropriate. Documentation of terrestrial surveys, aquatic
tozicity tests, bioassays or benthic surveys for species
diversity should be provided as appropriate.
Use of Treatabilitv Studies
The "Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA"
(EPA 540/2-89/058) and a summary short sheet were issued in
December, 1989. According to the guide, treatability studies
have historically been delayed until after the ROD has been
signed. Treatability studies provide data to support treatment
technology selection and remedy implementation and should be
performed as soon as it is evident that insufficient information
is available to ensure the quality of the decision. The guide
provides information to facilitate the planning and execution of
treatability studies in support of the RI/FS and the RD/RA
process. The guide describes a three-tiered approach for
conducting treatability studies and presents a stepwise protocol
for conducting treatability studies for determination of the
effectiveness of a technology (or combination of technologies) in
remediating a CERCLA site.
Baseline Findingst Consistent with last year's findings,
treatability studies are often planned for remedial design rather
than during the remedial investigation, and innovative
technologies are sometimes eliminated when treatability studies
have not been conducted or planned prior to the ROD.
10
-------
_.,-„ Exhibit I
FY 89 AND FV90 RECORD OF DECISION ANALYSIS UNIVERSE
S
|
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0
r
Typ« of Action
FY '89 ROOs
i FY -90 ROO»3
1 FY89 Record of Dedaon (ROD) Analysis evaluated 131 RODs out of 143 RODs entered Into CERCUS:
an additional 4 ROD* were not received by Headquarters and 8 RODs covering multiple sites were
evaluated only
FT90 Record of DacMon (ROD) Analysis evaluated 150 RODs out of 168 RODs entered Into CERCUS:
an additional 2 ROD* were not receieved by Headquarters. 2 RODs covering multiple sites were
counted only once, and 8 federal facility RODs that followed an alternate format were not reviewed. Six
ROD -niendinents also were excluded.
-------
™, ,~> Exhibit 2A
FY 90 ROD ANALYSIS NATIONAL RESULTS AND COMPARISON:
DOCUMENTATION OF ARARs IN FINAL SOURCE CONTROL RODs'
100 —
80-
Q
! eo-
O
&
«B
S 40-
20-
"*
0_
100-
80-
O
! «
o
f "-
a 20-
m
h
3 1
1 1
/
/
j
1
>
/
DM
I
•MM
/
icri
i
/:
jtlon
1
1 rl
^ ^
n
#/
of Alt«m«tlv«s •
//#
Description of AKsmatlvss - ARARs (cont'd)
[ IH^ FY '88 RODS C
BKWl
Hi
i i
<& <*
/*/+
-------
FYIX5SS£?IALYSIS NATIONALRESULTS AND COMPARISONS:
DOCUMENTATION OF ARARs IN GROUND WATER RODs*
TOO —
80-
Q
O
5 60-
0
1 '
W
S 40-
1 "i
M
1
1
i
_^!
^^^•H
1
1
g
^ ^
1
1
i
100-
80-
2
i 6M
o
Perce
S
i
B
i
I
Description of Altematlvea • ARARs
Description of Alternatives - ARARs (corrt'd) Statutory Determinations • ARARs
FY '89 ROD*
The p«rc»ntage of ROOt pre»ented i« drecdy dependent upon tti« total number of «opiigaht1 RQO» fevaluated. therefore, the
number of ROOt used to calculate the percentage will vary among finding*.
-------
Exhibit 3A
FY'90 ROD ANALYSIS NATIONAL RESULTS AND COMPARISONS:
DOCUMENTATION OF SITE RISKS IN FINAL SOURCE CONTROL RODs*
Percentage of RODs
8 £ S 8 8
1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
M^M
1
_1
I
p
i
!
\
fj
M
i
_B
1
1
9
t
t
t
t
1
n
j
i
—
i
j
i
////
Summary of Site Risks • Human Health
100-1
/
I
1
Oeterfption of Comperativ* Statutory
Summary of Site Risks • Human Health (cont'd) AJt*rnativ«« Analysi* 0«Urmination«
FY '89 ROOs
FV90RODS
J
1 RMES - R0ason«b)« Maximum Exposure Scenario.
" Tht p«rc«ntag« of ROOs presented is drecdy dependent upon the total number of applicable ROOs evaluated; therefore, the
number of ROOs used to calculate th« percentages will vary among findings.
-------
Exhibit 3B
FY'90 ROD ANALYSIS NATIONAL RESULTS AND COMPARISONS:
DOCUMENTATION OF SITE RISKS IN FINAL GROUND WATER RODs*
I
I
80-
40-
20-
I
Summary of Sit* Risks - Human Health
(£
"S
&
Summary off SHa Risks - Human Haalth (cont'd)
Comparatlva
Analysis
FY '89 ROOs
FY '90 ROOs
Statutory
Datarmlnatlons
1 'RMES* • rwtonaWt maximum cxposurt •ccnario.
Th« p«rc«ntag« of ROD* prt««nt«j is dirvcfy d«p«nd«rt upon th« total number of appBcabU ROD* tvaluatad; tharefore. the
* number of ROOs used to calculatt th« percentages will vary among findings.
-------
Exhibit 4A
FY'90 ROD ANALYSIS NATIONAL RESULTS AND COMPARISONS: DOCUMENTATION OF
RATIONALE FOR REMEDY SELECTION IN FINAL SOURCE CONTROL RODs*
100-
80-
" 60-
o
1
£ 40-
8
* .:
rmm
•*^> /,
1
i
f
I
^^^^
I
1
\
Statutory D«t«rmln«tlon« • Rational* for R«m«dy Selection
FY '88 ROD*
FY '89 RODa
'90 RODa
'The p«rc«ntag« of ROD* pr«Mnt«d is directly dependant upon the total number of applicable ROOs evaluated: therefore, the
number of ROOs used to calculate the percentages will vary among findings.
-------
Exhibit 4B
FY'90 ROD ANALYSIS NATIONAL RESULTS AND COMPARISONS: DOCUMENTATION OF
RATIONALE FOR REMEDY SELECTION IN FINAL GROUND WATER RODs*
100-
80-
5
O
2 60-
o
1
1 40-
1 .:
^i^
!
i
, — E
1
Statutory Octwmlnatlons - Rational* for Ramady Salactlon
FY'SQRODa
FY '90 ROD*
The percentage of RODs presented is drectiy dependent upon the total number of applicable RODs evaluated; therefore, the
number of RODs used to calculate the percentages will vary among findings.
-------
Exhibit 5A
FY'90 ROD ANALYSIS NATIONAL RESULTS AND COMPARISONS: DOCUMENTATION OF
KEY COMPONENTS OF THE SELECTED REMEDY IN FINAL SOURCE CONTROL RODs*
O
O
c
"5
$
I
100^
80
•
60
8
i
i
-1
\
I
/
/ /
Remediation Goals
M
Risk Levels Corresponding Points of
to Cleanup Goals Compliance
Management
of Residuals
'The percentage of ROD* presented is drectty dependent upon the total number of applicable ROOs evaluated; therefore, trie
number of ROOs used to calculate the percentages will vary among findings.
-------
Exhibit SB
FY'90 ROD ANALYSIS NATIONAL RESULTS AND COMPARISONS: DOCUMENTATION OF THE
KEY COMPONENTS OF THE SELECTED REMEDY IN FINAL GROUND WATER RODs*
100-
80-
o
SE son
o
40-
•
20-
0
I
I
Remediation Goals
Risk Levels Corresponding Points of Management
to Cleanup Goals Compliance of Residuals
•The percentage of ROD* presented is dfracfy dependent upon the total number of applicable ROOs evaluated; therefore, the
number of ROOs used to calculate the percentages will vary among findings.
-------
Exhibit 6
FY'90 ROD ANALYSIS NATIONAL RESULTS AND COMPARISONS: DEFINING
PRINCIPAL AND LOW-LEVEL THREATS IN FINAL SOURCE CONTROL RODs*
100-
an -
Percentage of RODs
o 8 S 8 i
i i i i i i i i
K
g
K
22
g
%
0
g
55
55
%
••MM
ty
•••MM
1
y
•
fl
/^^ /^j
^••B
1
:4
X
^^^^
1
^
Site Characteristics - Principal and Low-level Threats
1 i 1 FY '89 RODS B^l
FY '90 RODS b
The percentage of RODs presented is directly dependent upon the total number of applicable RODs evaluated; therefc
niimhAr rtf QfVlei nauwH tn /«tti^iiJftt* tK* nnrrnntiineiai tuill uavu 4«w**w4 flfw4I«viei
-------
Exhibit 7
FY'90 ROD ANALYSIS NATIONAL RESULTS:
CONSISTENCY WITH PROGRAM EXPECTATIONS
PROGRAM EXPECTATIONS
TOTAL NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES MCP EXPECTATIONS ADDRESSED
Source Control Ground Water Source Control Ground Water
Principal Threats • Total 22
- Treatment 60
• Containment 12
(treatment is Impracticable)
Low-Level Threats - Total fig
• Containment 52
- Treatment 16
(In conjunction with principal threat
waste or to control migration)
Waste On-«ite Above Health-Based
Levels - Total Zfi
- Institutional Controls 56
(for short-term Impacts or
engineering control supplement)
- Institutional Controls 0
(as the primary remedy)
Treatment Selected - Total 5A
• Innovative Treatment 39
Technologies Selected
Ground Water Actions - Total
• Ground Water Restoration
fiZ
40
ZZ
7
ZZ
76
100%
83%
17%
100%
76%
24%
80%
0%
61%
60%
0%
9%
99%
TOTAL FV90 ROOe REVIEWED
97
77
------- |