UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                        WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460          RFCCn/ED
                                                    SEP 1 * 1992
                                                   SUPEHFUND
                    SEP
                                                       OFFICE OF
                                              SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:
PROM:
TO:
Transmittal of the Results of the FY JL991 Records of
Decision Analysis
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedia
          Bruce M. Diamond, Director
          Office of Waste Programs Er
                                            esponse
                                ment
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

     This memorandum transmits the Directive entitled, "Results
of the FY 1991  (FY 91) Records of Decision Analysis,"  (OSWER
rvjjrgf> i ve=> M<->, q^s. "3-i fi)  (attached) and summarizes the results of
the FY 91 ROD Analysis.  As the results show, the Regions have
shown a very good effort in the continuous improvement in the
quality of documentation in Records of Decision over the past
three years.  This memorandum highlights strengths and recommends
areas for further improvement in the quality of Records of
Decision.

     Once again, we wish to thank you and your staff for
participating in the FY 91 Records of Decision Analysis which
took place January 14-16, 1992.

-------
Summary of Results of FY 91 Records of Decision Analysis

     A total of 156 FY 91 Records of Decision were analyzed.  FY
91 results were compared with data generated from FY 90.  The
Regions have demonstrated continued improvement in the quality of
ROD documentation, especially in the following categories:
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate requirements; Risk; Key
Components of the Selected Remedy; and Rationale for Remedy
Selection.  The most dramatic improvements occurred in the
documentation of risk.


     Summary of Recommendations Based on FY 91 Records of
     Decision Analysis

     The items listed below are areas of documentation in Records
of Decision that are important to maintain.  The quality of
documentation in FY 91 Records of Decision is high in the first
three items listed below.  Items 4-10 were identified as areas
in need of improvement in FY 91 Records of Decision.  Regions
should therefore focus on these items for improvement in FY 92
Records of Decision.

     Strengths

     1.   Description of Applicable or Relevant and
          Appropriate Requirements for the selected remedy

     2.   Identification of the baseline risk

     3.   Provision of the basis for clean-up levels where clean-
          up levels were documented (Providing the basis for
          clean-up levels is very important.  A table for this
          information to be included in Records of Decision has
          been incorporated in to the upcoming Record of Decision
          guidance.)

     Areas in Need of Improvement

     4.   RCRA waste identification in ground-water Records
          of Decision

     5.   Identification of Resource Conservation and
          Recovery Act Land Disposal Restrictions as
          Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
          Requirements in the Description of Alternatives

     6.   Provision of the basis for future land use

     7.   Specification of the five primary balancing
          criteria that were the most important in the
          remedy decision

-------
     8.   Documentation of the clean-up levels to be achieved for
          each ground-water alternative in the Description of
          Alternatives (Attachment 2)

     9.   Provision of the basis for uncertainty associated
          with the ability to achieve ground-water clean-up
          levels

     10.  Conduct treatability studies before Record of
          Decision signature - Special attention should be
          paid to conducting treatability studies during the
          Remedial Investigation, as opposed to during
          Remedial Design.  Conducting these studies during
          the Remedial Investigation should lead to fewer
          resources devoted to writing Contingent RODs,
          Explanation of Significant Differences and ROD
          Amendments.

          It is acknowledged that treatability studies will
          not necessarily provide information that will
          allow for a clear choice between technologies.
          However, treatability studies will provide greater
          assurance that the technology selected can meet
          the performance requirements and should provide
          information to support the remedial alternative
          evaluation; this is particularly important for
          innovative technologies where performance and cost
          data are limited.

          For FY 92,  funds have been provided to the Risk
          Reduction Engineering Lab for use on treatability
          studies.  Currently,  there is an attempt to
          provide funding for additional support on
          treatability study work for FY 93.

     As previously mentioned,  Records of Decision have shown
continuous improvement in the area of Risk documentation, however
improvement is needed.  Specific recommendations include:

     1.   Regions should include information based on the
          sample charts/tables in the upcoming "Record of
          Decision Guidance."

     2.   While the land use assumptions in risk assessments
          are being documented in Records of Decision, often
          the land use that the selected remedy's clean-up
          levels will meet is not documented.  Regions
          should ensure that this land use associated with
          the clean-up levels is documented in Records of
          Decision.  This will be included in the upcoming
          "Record of Decision Guidance."

-------
     Both Headquarters and the Regions should make better use of
"A Guide to Principal and Low Level Threat Wastes," when
determining whether or not the site contains principal threats,
low-level threats, neither, or both of these types of waste
materials.  Regional Coordinators should help clarify these
definitions during Regional visits with Regional management and
the Remedial Project Managers.


Regional Coordinator Review of Records of Decision

     In the past, Regional Coordinators have often been tasked to
review all Records of Decision prepared by a Region prior to
signature.  We believe across-the-board peer review is best
performed at the Regional level,  supplemented as appropriate by
advice from "expert teams" in subject areas which present unique
problems (e.g. the Regional "peer review" team for mining sites).
For those Regions that currently do not have a Regional peer
review process, we strongly encourage Regions to consider
implementing one.  We are therefore proposing to disinvest from
routine review of all Records of Decision prior to signature.
Regional Coordinators will continue to review Records of Decision
that must have a Headquarters consultation.  Additionally,
Regional Coordinators will review Records of Decision upon
special request, if the site is unusually complex,  controversial,
etc.  All proposed plans will continue to be reviewed by Regional
Coordinators.
Record of Decision Forums and FY 92 Records of Decision Analysis

     In response to feedback received from the Regions last year,
we have decided not to conduct formal Record of Decision Forums
in each Region as in previous years.  Rather, we will accommodate
any Regional requests for Record of Decision Forums,  policy or
Record of Decision workshops, etc., should the Regions desire to
tailor such a program to meet their needs.  Please contact your
respective Regional Coordinators if you wish to hold such
programs.  We are also planning to reevaluate the current Record
of Decision analysis process for FY 92 Records of Decision with a
focus on streamlining.  Scoping for this project will begin in
the near future.  In addition, the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement will continue its annual analysis of Fund vs.
Enforcement-lead Records of Decision in terms of treatment vs.


containment.  Currently, both the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response and the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
are working together to develop a national Records of Decision
database for remedy evaluation.

-------
     Headquarters is currently updating the "Record of Decision
Guidance."  The updated version will contain guidance on how to
document ecological risks.  Headquarters will be issuing a
revised version of the Record of Decision Checklists for Regional
use.

     If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
call Sharon Frey of the Remedial Operations and Guidance Branch,
Hazardous Site Control Division, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response at (703)  603-8772.


Attachments

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
     Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Regional
     Coordinators
     Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Regional  Coordinators

-------
                            ATTACHMENT

       Results of the FY 1991 Records of Decision Analysis
                OSWER Directive Number 9355.3-16
Purpose

     This memorandum reports the results of the FY 1991 (FY 91)
Record of Decision Analysis and compares these results to
previous years' data.  Additionally, this directive provides
recommendations for Headquarters and Regional focus to further
improve Record of Decision quality.


Background

     The annual Record of Decision Analysis has been conducted
since FY 1988  (FY 88) to evaluate the quality of Record of
Decision documentation as well as some program areas.  Beginning
in FY 1989 (FY 89) the Record of Decision Analysis was changed to
a much more extensive data gathering effort.  This was done in
order to provide Regional management and staff with detailed
annual feedback on trends in Record of Decision quality,  and
feedback for Headquarters on where to provide clarification of
existing guidance and/or additional guidance.  As a result, a
large amount of data has been collected for FY 89, FY 1990 (FY
90), and FY 91 Records of Decision.

     A total of 156 FY 91 Records of Decision were analyzed.
This number"includes Final Action Records of Decision, Interim
Action Records of Decision, and No Action Records of Decision
(see Figure 1).  Federal Facility Records of Decision were not
analyzed as part of this year's Record of Decision Analysis.  FY
91 Final Action Records of Decision consisted of 28 source-
control only Records of Decision, 34 ground-water only Records of
Decision, and 65 source and ground-water actions  (see Figure 2).
FY 91 Interim Action Records of Decision consisted of six source-
control only Records of Decision, 21 ground-water only Records of
Decision, and three combined source-control and ground-water
Records of Decision (see Figure 3).


Results of FY 91 Record of Decision Analysis

     Superfund Program Expectations

     The following data are the results from FY 91 Records of
Decision on the Superfund Program Expectations.  Please note that
21% of final action Records of Decision improperly defined ground
water as either a principal or low-level threat.  Therefore,
those Records of Decision are not included in the calculations
regarding principal and low-level threats presented below.

-------
          Due to confusion over the definition of "principal
          threat," and therefore inconsistent data, the Program
          Expectation of whether or not principal threats are
          being treated is not reported.

          Engineering controls are being used in 21% of final
          source control Records of Decision to contain low-level
          threats where low-level threats exist at the site.

     •    A combination of treating principal threats and
          containing low-level threats is used in 56% of final
          action Records of Decision.

          Institutional controls are used in 93% of final Records
          of Decision where hazardous materials are remaining on
          site above health-based levels to supplement the remedy
          by controlling exposure and/or to be used during the
          remedial action.

     •    Where innovative technologies were considered,
          they were selected 69% of the time.

          Restoration to beneficial use for ground water is
          documented in 77% of ground-water actions.


     Polychlorinated Biphenyl Guidance

     FY 90 data indicated that Records of Decision generally
followed the "Guidance on Remedial Actions for Sites Contaminated
with Polychlorinated Biphenyls" (Directive No. 9355.4-01,  August
1990) and its companion short sheet, "A Guide on Remedial Actions
at Superfund Sites With Polychlorinated-Biphenyl Contamination"
(Directive 9355.4-01 FS, August 1990).  FY 91 data indicate that
the policies set forth in these guidances generally continue to
be followed.

     No Action Records of Decision

     The analysis of the five No Action Records of Decision
signed in FY 91, was focussed on the Summary of Site Risks.
Generally, the No Action Record of Decision results followed the
same trends as the other Final Action Records of Decision.

     Interim Action Records of Decision (Figure 19)

     Data collected on interim action Records of Decision show
that most of these Records of Decision state that the interim
action will be consistent with any planned future actions at the
site.  The time frame for interim ground-water actions was
documented in a low percentage of these Records of Decision.

-------
     State-Lead Records of Decision

     In FY 91, nine final State-lead Records of Decision and one
interim state-lead Record of Decision were signed  (in FY 90, 23
State-lead Records of Decision were signed).  FY 91 State-lead
Records of Decision were analyzed against the results of all the
final action Records of Decision.   Generally, the quality of the
documentation contained in State-lead Records of Decision was
lower than EPA-lead Records of Decision.

     FY 91 Baseline Data

     Baseline data was collected on the definition of principal
and low-level threats and documentation of ecological risk.  The
definition of principal and low-level threats is still a source
of confusion as demonstrated by the 21% of final action Records
of Decision that inappropriately described contaminated ground
water as either a principal or low-level threat.

     Additionally, 43% of final action Records of Decision stated
that an ecological assessment was performed.   For the remainder
of Records of Decision, 38% justified why an ecological
assessment was not done.

     Comparison of Results

     The change in percent in final action Records of Decision
from FY 90 to FY 91 are reported based on the following
categories:  Insignificant change (0%-10%); Moderate change (11%-
20%); and Major change (21%+).   Please see all attachments for
more detailed information on data from FY 91 and trends from FY
89 to FY 91.

     Moderate improvements (i.e., percent changes from 11% to
20%)  in FY 90 Records of Decision occur in the following
categories:

          Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

               Description of the key Applicable or Relevant
               and Appropriate Requirements for each
               alternative in the Description of
               Alternatives (Figure 4)

          •    Identification of Resource Conservation and
               Recovery Act waste (Figure 5)

               Identification of 40 CFR Appendix 6 as an
               Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
               Requirement (Figure 7)

-------
          Risk

               Documentation that the Baseline Risk is based
               on the Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario
               (Figure 9)

               Identification of the Baseline Risk for
               source-control Records of Decision (Figure 9)

               Identification of current land use) (Figure
               10)

               Identification of Chronic Daily Intake
               Factors (Figure 12)

               Documentation of sources of uncertainty in
               the Risk Assessment in ground-water Records
               of Decision (Figure 13)

          Key Components of the Selected Remedy

               Identification of points of compliance in
               ground-water Records of Decision (Figure 15)

               Provision of clean-up levels (Figure 16)

          Rationale for Remedy Selection

               Provision of the rationale for the selected
               remedy stated in terms of the nine criteria
               (Figure 18)

          •     Utilization of permanent solutions and
               alternative treatment technologies or
               resource recovery technologies to the maximum
               extent practicable in source-control Records
               of Decision (Figure 18)

    Major improvements (percent change from FY 90 Records of
Decision of at least 21%) are seen in the following items:
          Risk
               Identification of the baseline risk in
               ground-water Records of Decision (Figure 9)

               Justification of taking action where the
               baseline risk falls within the risk range in
               source-control Records of Decision (Figure 9)

               Identification of future land use (Figure 10)

-------
               Identification of the populations at risk in
               source-control Records of Decision (Figure
               11)

               Documentation of sources of uncertainty in
               the risk assessment in source-control Records
               of Decision (Figure 13)

               Provision of the "Imminent and Substantial
               Endangerment" statement in all Records of
               Decision (Figure 13)

          Key Components of the Selected Remedy

               Provision of the treatment level that the
               extracted ground water will reach (Figure 16)


     Moderate declines (decrease of 20%)  are seen in the
following two areas from FY 90 to FY 91:

          Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

          •     Identification of non-zero Maximum
               Contaminant Level Goals and Maximum
               Contaminant Levels in ground-water Records of
               Decision (Figure 7)


          Key Components of the Selected Remedy

               Provision of the basis for soil clean-up
               levels (Figure 17)


    A major decline (decrease of more than 21%)  is seen in the
following area:

          Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

          •     Identification of the Endangered Species Act
               in ground-water Records of Decision (Figure
               6)
FY 91 Strengths and Areas for Improvement

     The following are the major conclusions regarding the
strengths and areas for improvement from the FY 91 Records of
Decision.  Major strengths are those where at least 75% of
Records of Decision reported the information.  Major areas for

-------
improvement are those where 50% and below of the Records of
Decision reported the information.

     The strengths are documentation in the following areas:

          Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

               Description of Applicable or Relevant and
               Appropriate Requirements for the selected
               remedy (Figure 4)

               Compliance of the selected remedy with
               Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
               Requirements (Figure 4)

               Documentation of State Applicable or Relevant
               and Appropriate Requirements (Figure 6)
          Risk
               Provision of exposure pathway-specific risk
               estimates

               Identification of  the baseline  risk (Figure 9)

               Justification for  taking action where  the
               baseline risk does not exceed the  risk range
               (Figure 9)

               Identification of  current and future land use
               (Figure 10)

               Identification of  populations at risk  (Figure
               11)

               Identification of  the exposure  pathways for
               each  population group (Figure 11)

               Documentation of the  basic toxicity
               information  for source-control  Records of
               Decision (Figure 12)

               Inclusion of the imminent and substantial
               endangerment statement (Figure  13)

               Identification of  the potential beneficial
               use of ground water (Figure 13)

-------
          Discussion of how alternatives will ensure
          overall protectiveness in ground-water
          Records of Decision (Comparative Analysis)
          (Figure 14)

     Key Components of the Selected Remedy

          Extracted ground-water treatment level
          (Figure 16)

          Ground-water clean-up levels (Figure 16)

          Basis for clean-up levels, including soil
          clean-up levels where clean-up levels were
          documented (Figure 17)
     Rationale for the Selected Remedy

          Documentation of the rationale for the
          selected remedy stated in terms of the nine
          criteria (Figure 18)

          Meeting the statutory requirement for
          treatment to the maximum extent practicalbe,
          or a finding that treatment is impracticable
          (Figure 18)

The following are additional strengths (see Attachment 2)

          Documentation of the Declaration; Site
          Location and Description; Site History and
          Enforcement Activities; Highlights of
          Community Participation; and Scope and Role
          of Operable Unit

     •     Cost Documentation in the Description of
          Alternatives

     •     Documentation of the Comparative Analysis
          (with the exceptions discussed below)

     •     Documentation of cost effectiveness in the
          Statutory Determinations

The areas for improvement follow:

     Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

     •     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act waste
          identification in ground-water Records of
          Decision (Figured)

-------
               Identification of Resource Conservation and
               Recovery Act Land Disposal Restrictions as
               Applicable and Relevant or Appropriate
               Requirements in the Description of
               Alternatives (Figure 5)

               Identification of the Endangered Species Act
               as an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
               Requirement (Figure 6)

               Identification of 40 CFR Appendix A as an
               Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
               Requirement in ground-water Records of
               Decision (Figure 7)
          Risk
               Documentation that the baseline risk is based
               on the Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario
               (Figure 8)

          •    Provision of the basis for future land use
               (Figure 10)

          •    Identification of Chronic Daily Intake
               Factors (Figure 12)

               Discussion that the risk will be reduced to
               within risk range for each alternative in the
               Description of Alternatives (Figure 14)

          .Rationale for the Selected Remedy

          •    Specification of the five primary balancing
               criteria that were the most important in the
               remedy decision (Figure 18)

          Interim Actions

          •    Provision of the timeframe for the interim
               action for interim ground-water remedies
               (Figure 19)

     In addition, the following are areas for improvement (see
Attachment 2):

     •    Description of Alternatives - Documentation of the
          clean-up levels to be achieved for each ground-
          water alternative in the Description of
          Alternatives
                                8

-------
          Comparative Analysis - Documentation of the
          administrative feasibility of each alternative
          under the Implementability criterion.

          Justification for use of nonstandard default
          exposure assumptions

          Provision of the basis for uncertainty associated
          with ability to achieve ground-water clean-up
          levels

          Conduct treatability studies before Record of
          Decision signature


Recommendations

     The following recommendations are based on the results of
the FY 91 Record of Decision Analysis:

     The items listed below are areas of Record of Decision
documentation that are important to maintain.  The quality of
documentation in FY 91 Records of Decision is high in the first
three items listed below.   Items 4-10 were identified as areas
in need of improvement in FY 91 Records of Decision.   Regions
should therefore focus on these items for improvement in FY 92
Records of Decision.

     1.   Description of Applicable or Relevant and
          Appropriate Requirements for the selected remedy

     2.   Identification of the baseline risk

     3.   Provision of the basis for clean-up levels

     4.   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act waste
          identification in ground-water Records of Decision

     5.   Identification of Resource Conservation and
          Recovery Act Land Disposal Restrictions as
          Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
          Requirements in the Description of Alternatives

     6.   Provision of the basis for future land use

     7.   Specification of the five primary balancing
          criteria that were the most important in the
          remedy decision

     8.   Documentation of the clean-up levels to be
          achieved for each ground-water alternative in the
          Description of Alternatives

-------
     9.   Provision of the basis for uncertainty associated
          with the ability to achieve ground-water clean-up
          levels

     10.  Conduct treatability studies before Record of
          Decision signature - Special attention should be
          paid to conducting treatability studies during the
          Remedial Investigation, as opposed to during
          Remedial Design.  Conducting these studies during
          the Remedial Investigation should lead to fewer
          resources devoted to writing Explanation of
          Significant Differences and Record of Decision
          Amendments.  As sites move through the Remedial
          Pipeline and into Remedial Design/Remedial Action,
          the number of Explanation of Significant
          Differences and Record of Decision Amendments will
          be numerous if treatability studies are not
          completed during the Remedial Investigation.

          It is acknowledged that treatability studies will
          not necessarily provide information that will
          allow for a clear choice between technologies.
          However, treatability studies will provide greater
          assurance that the technology selected can meet
          the performance requirements and should provide
          information to support the remedial alternative
          evaluation; this is particularly important for
          innovative technologies where performance and cost
          data are limited.

          For FY 92,  funds have been provided to the Risk
          Reduction Engineering Lab for use on treatability
          studies.  Currently,  there is an attempt to
          provide funding for additional support on
          treatability study work for FY 93.

     As previously mentioned,  Records of Decision have shown
continuous improvement in the area of Risk documentation.
Specific recommendations include:

     1.   Regions should include information based on the
          sample charts/tables in the upcoming "Record of
          Decision Guidance."

     2.   While the land use assumptions in risk assessments
          are being documented in Records of Decision,  often
          the land use that the selected remedy's clean-up
          levels will meet is not documented.  Regions
          should ensure that this land use associated with
          the clean-up levels is documented in Records of
          Decision.   This will be included in the upcoming
          "Record of Decision" Guidance.

                                10

-------
     Both Headquarters and the Regions should make use of "A
Guide to Principal and Low Level Threat Wastes," when determining
whether or not the site contains principal threats, low-level
threats, neither, or both of these types of waste materials.
Regional Coordinators should clarify these definitions during
Regional visits with Regional management and the Remedial Project
Managers.

     If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
call Sharon Frey of the Hazardous Site Control Division at (703)
603-8772.
Attachments

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
     Office of Emergency and Remedial Response  Regional
     Coordinators
     Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Regional Coordinators

-------
                           Attachment  2

  Additional Results from the FY 91 Record of Decision Analysis


     The results in this Attachment are not presented graphically
because they were not a "key" area of focus as determined in FY
90, instead they were a "core" area of Record of Decision
documentation.  Some of the results below were "baseline" data
from FY 90.  For FY 91, these data are part of the "core" data.

Declaration, Site Location and Description, Site History and
Enforcement Activities, Highlights of Community Participation,
Scope and Role

          99% — the history of site activities that led to
          the current problems at the site.

          94% — the history and state site investigations
          and removal and remediation actions conducted
          under CERCLA or other authorities).

          99% — public participation requirements under
          CERCLA.

     •     96% — the scope of the remedial action and the
          problems addressed by the remedial action.

Description of Alternatives/Selected Remedy

     Some if this information is either found in the Description
of Alternatives (for each applicable alternative)  and/or the
Selected Remedy.  The following information was documented in the
Description of Alternatives section, unless otherwise specified.

     •     71% of Records of Decision with treatment
          alternatives — the treatment level(s)  to be
          attained by the treatment technology (either
          Description of Alternatives or Selected Remedy).

          63% of Records of Decision with treatment
          alternatives — the basis for selecting the
          treatment level (e.g. Applicable or Relevant and
          Appropriate Requirements, health-based levels,
          etc.)  (either Description of Alternatives of
          Selected Remedy.)

          52% of Records of Decision where residuals are
          generated and/or a source area is being addressed
          — the estimated quantity of untreated waste
          and/or estimated quantity of treatment residuals,
          or a general measurement of the volume or area
          (e.g.  municipal landfill.) (either Description of
          Alternatives or Selected Remedy.)

-------
          45% of ground-water Records of Decision — Each
          alternative described clean-up levels to be
          achieved in ground water.

          59% of ground-water Records of Decision restoring
          to beneficial use — Estimated timeframe for
          restoration for restoration to beneficial use
          alternatives.

          53% of ground-water Records of Decision restoring
          to beneficial use — Provision for monitoring the
          ground water once the system is shut off to ensure
          that clean-up levels are maintained for
          restoration to beneficial use alternatives.

     •    28% of Records of Decision do not address
          residuals management where residuals are
          generated.

          81% of Records of Decision — Estimated capital
          costs.

          76% of Records of Decision — Estimated Operation
          & Maintenance costs.

          83% of Records of Decision — Estimated present
          worth costs.

Summary of Comparative Analysis

          97% of Records of Decision — Nine criteria
          discussed with a paragraph for each criterion
          indicating major advantages and disadvantages of
          each alternative.

     •    79% of Records of Decision — Compliance with
          Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
          Requirements section states that- each alternative
          meets Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
          Requirements or provides the grounds for invoking
          an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
          Requirements waiver.

          80% of Records of Decision — Long-Term
          Effectiveness and Permanence discussed properly.

     •    78% of Records of Decision with treatment
          alternatives — Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility,
          or Volume Through Treatment discussed properly.

     •    90% of Records of Decision — Short-Term
          Effectiveness discussed properly.

-------
          93% of Records of Decision — Implementability
          discusses the technical feasibility of each
          alternative.

          42% of Records of Decision — Implementability
          discusses the administrative feasibility of each
          alternative.

          54% of Records of Decision — Implementability
          discusses the availability of each alternative.

          93% of Records of Decision — State/support Agency
          acceptance properly discussed.

          93% of Records of Decision — Community Acceptance
          properly discussed.

Statutory Determinations in the Selected Remedy

          99% of Records of Decision — properly documented
          cost effectiveness.

Nonstandard Default Exposure Assumptions

     37% of all Records of Decision documented nonstandard
     default exposure assumptions, with 33% of these Records
     of Decision justifying the use of such alternate
     values.

Ground-water Uncertainty Language

     64% of final ground-water Records of Decision discussed
     the uncertainty associated with the ability to achieve
     clean-up levels in the ground water, with 41% of these
     Records of Decision documenting the basis for the
     uncertainty (see "Suggested Record of Decision Language
     for Various Ground Water Remediation Options," (OSWER
     Directive no.  9283.1-03, October 10, 1990).

Treatability Studies

     18% of Records of Decision where it is known that a
     treatability study is needed, conducted the
     treatability study before Record of Decision signature.
     (Note that 54% of all Records of Decision do not state
     anything about treatability studies.)

-------
Baseline Data
     The following data was collected last year as baseline
     data,  i.e., data collected to begin to measure the
     effectiveness of newly developed policy and/or policy
     areas for future guidance development.  Both these
     areas were selected as baseline data again for FY 91
     Records of Decision.  Ecological assessments were
     selected again because guidance on how to document
     ecological assessments in Records of Decision is
     currently under development.   The definition of
     principal and low-level threats was again selected
     because the guidance,  "A Guide to Principal Threat and
     Low Level Threat Wastes," (Superfund Publication
     9380.3-06FS, Nov. 1991) was transmitted to Regional
     offices in January 1992,  i.e. after the beginning of FY
     91.

          Ecological Assessments

               •    43% of  all Records of Decision stated an
                    ecological assessment was performed

                    Of those Records of Decision,  not performing
                    an ecological  assessment (57%),  38% justified
                    why an  ecological assessment was not
                    performed.

          Principal and Low-level  Threats

               •    53% of  all Records of Decision — Designated
                    principal  threats

               •    22% of  all Records of Decision — Described
                    materials  posing a low-level threat

               •    21% of  all Records of Decision — Described
                    ground  water as either a principal or low-
                    level threat

-------
Figure 1. FY'91 RODs:  Final, Interim, and No Action
                        3.2%
               3.8%
  15.3%
                                                77.7%
                                                        I    I  Final Only        121
                                                        I    I  Interim Only       24
                                                              Final and Interim    6
                                                              No Action          5
                                                                    Total Rods 156

-------
Figure 2.  FY '91 Final Action RODs: Source Versus Ground Water
   51.2%
                                                       26.8%
                                                      22.0%
                                                 1HI   Ground Water Only             28
                                                 I   I   Source Control Only             34
                                                 Itiiftl   Source Control and Ground Water  65
                                                                           Total Rods 127

-------
Figure 3.  FY '91 Interim Action RODs:  Source Versus Ground Water
                                         10.0%
      70.0%
                                                          20.0%
                                                        Source Control Only              6
                                                        Ground Water Only              21
                                                        Source Control and Ground Water   3
                                                                           Total Rods 30

-------
Figure 4 - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
   Moderate increases were observed in the percentage of RODs that described the key ARARs for each alternative. No significant
   change was observed from FY '90 to FY '91 in the percentage of RODs describing ARARs for the selected remedy, although there
   were moderate (high) increases from FY '89 to FY '90 in source-control RODs and moderate increases in ground-water RODS.  The
   percentage of RODs indicating that the selected remedy complies with ARARs did not change significantly from FY '89 to FY '91.
    100
               89  90  91
              Ground Water
  89  90 91
Source Control
                Key ARARs Described for
                    Each Alternative
   89  90 91      89  90  91
  Ground Water  Source Control
 ARARs Description for Selected
Remedy (Statutory Determinations)
89  90  91      89  90 91
Ground Water  Source Control
     Selected Remedy
   Complies with ARARs
          Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 5 - ARARs
    Moderate (high) improvement from FY '90 to FY '91 was observed in addressing whether or not there is a Resource Conservation
    Recovery Act (RCRA) waste after declines from FY '89 to FY '90. The percentage of RODs identifying Land Disposal Restrictions
    (LDR) showed insignificant changes from FY '89 to FY '91. Changes over the last three years have been insignificant for the
    percentage of RODs addressing RCRA closure requirements as ARARs.

    100
     75
 o>
 E
 0>
 o_
50
     25
      0
              89  90  91      89  90  91
              Ground Water  Source Control
                    Identification of
                     RCRA Waste
                                            89  90  91      89  90  91
                                            Ground Water  Source Control
                                                Determination of LDR
                                                    as an ARAR
                      89  90  91
                    Source Control
RCRA Closure Requirements Identified as
   ARAR (Description of Alternatives)
         Note:  Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 6 - ARARs
 The Endangered Species Act was identified as an ARAR in a smaller percentage of RODs than in previous years
 with the percentage of ground-water RODs identifying this information dropping significantly.  However, the
 source-control RODs providing this information showed no significant change. No significant changes occurred over
 the years in addressing ARARs for residual management and state ARARs.

    100
    75
 0)
 2  50
     25
      0
             89  90  91
             Ground Water
  89  90  91
Source Control
               Endangered Species Act
                 Identified as ARAR
89  90 91      89  90  91
Ground Water  Source Control
    ARARs for Residuals
  Management Discussed
89  90 91      89 90  91
Ground Water  Source Control
       State ARARs
        Addressed
         Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes* as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 7 - ARARs
 The percentage of source-control RODs identifying the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 as an ARAR where wetlands were identified and there was a
 discharge to wetlands showed no significant change from last year.  Moderate improvement over previous years was observed in the percentage of RODs
 identifying 40 CFR, Part 6, Appendix A as an ARAR where wetlands were identified and an action is taken within the wetlands. Moderate (high)
 improvement was observed in ground-water RODs in this area. A moderate decrease occurred in the percentage of ground-water RODs identifying or
 waiving Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or non-zero Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) from FY '89 to FY '90 and from FY '90 to FY '91.
    100
     75
 c
 0)
 y   50
 0)
 CL
     25
                                89  90  91
                              Source Control
                CWA Section 404 Identified
                       as an ARAR
 89  90  91       89  90  91
Ground Water  Source Control
  40 CFR Part 6 Appendix A
    Identified as an ARAR
     89  90  91
    Ground Water
Non-zero MCLGs or MCLs Identified or
 Waived (Description of Alternatives)
          Note:  Figure shows sites responding "Yes' as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 8 - Risk
   Moderate improvement was observed in the percentage of source-control RODs indicating that the baseline risk
   was based on reasonable maximum exposure scenario. Ground-water RODs providing this information showed
   no significant change.  Most FY '91  RODs documented the pathway-specific risk estimates.
    100
    75
 c
 0>
 fc>  50
 o>
 o.
    25
             89 90  91      89  90 91
             Ground Water  Source Control
          Baseline Risk Based on Reasonable
             Maximum Exposure Scenario
89  90  91
Ground Water
              89 90  91
            Source Control
Exposure Pathway-Specific
 Risk Estimates Provided
         Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes' as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 9 - Risk
    The percentage of RODs documenting the baseline risk rose from FY '89 to FY '91 with major increases in ground-water RODs and
    moderate (high) increases in source-control RODs. No significant changes were observed in RODs documenting the baseline risk
    exceeding the risk range.  A lower percentage of ground-water RODs provided the justification for taking action where the baseline risk
    is within the risk range and the hazard index is less than 1, although the change was insignificant from FY '89 to FY '90. A major
    increase was observed in providing justification under these circumstances for source control RODs.	

    100
     75
 c
 0)
 y
 0>
 O_
50
     25
               89  90 91       89  90  91
              Ground Water   Source Control
                 Baseline Risk Identified
                                              89  90  91       89  90  91
                                             Ground Water  Source Control
                                                Baseline Risk Exceeds
                                                      Risk Range
 89  90  91       89  90  91
Ground Water  Source Control
   Justification for Taking
       Action Provided
          Note: Figure shows sites responding 'Yes' as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 10-Risk
 Moderate (high) improvement from FY '90 was observed in identifying current land use, with major improvement seen
 in the identification of future land use.  From FY '89 to FY '91, moderate (high) increases were seen in identification of
 future land use. The percentage of RODs providing the basis for future land use remained about the same.
    100
     75
     so
 CD
 CL
     25
                            89 90  91
                          Source Control
                  Current Land Use
                      Identified
         89  90  91
        Source Control
Future Land Use
   Identified
            89 90  91
          Source Control
Basis for Future Land
    Use Provided
         Note: Figure shows sites responding 'Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 11 - Risk
   The percentage of ground-water RODs identifying populations at risk and exposure pathways has remained
   about the same over the last three years. Major improvement was observed in source control RODs identifying
   populations at risk over previous years. The percentage of source control RODs identifying exposure pathways
   for each population group rose slightly from last year to about the same level in FY '89.
    100
     75
 c
 0)
 2   50
 o>
 Q.
     25
             89  90 91      89  90  91

             Ground Water  Source Control

             Populations at Risk Identified
                                     89  90  91      89  90  91

                                    Ground Water  Source Control

                                   Exposure Pathways Identified for

                                       Each Population Group

Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 12-Risk
    Moderate (high) improvement was seen in the percentage of ground-water RODs identifying chronic daily intake
    factors. Source-control RODs showed moderate improvement in this area. The largest improvements were
    seen from FY '89 to FY '90 in RODS documenting the basic toxicity information used to calculate risk. No
    significant changes were observed from FY '90 to FY '91 in RODs documenting this information.

    100
     75
c

CL
     50
     25
             89  90 91      89  90  91
             Ground Water  Source Control
         Chronic Daily Intake Factors Identified
           for Each Contaminant of Concern
                                             89  90  91      89  90  91
                                            Ground Water  Source Control
                                             Basic Toxicity Information to
                                              Calculate Risk Identified
        Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 13-Risk
 Moderate (high) improvement was seen in the percentage of ground-water RODs that discussed the sources of uncertainty in the risk
 assessment. Major improvement occurred in source-control RODs documenting this information. The FY '91 RODs show major
 improvement in providing the imminent and substantial endangerment statement. The identification of the beneficial uses of ground water
 showed major decreases from FY '89 to FY '90. From FY '90 to FY '91 the percentage of RODs documenting this information rose;
 however this change was not significant.
    100
     75
 fc>   50
 0)
 0.
     25
              89  90  91
              Ground Water
  89  90  91
Source Control
                Sources of Uncertainty In
              Risk Assessment Discussed
   89  90 91      89  90  91
  Ground Water  Source Control
Imminent & Substantial Endanger-
                                                                            89  90  91
                                                                           Ground Water
                                                                             Potential Beneficial Use of
                                          ment Statement Provided             Ground Water Identified
Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 14- Risk
   The percentage of source-control RODs stating that the risk will be reduced to within the acceptable range showed insignificant changes from FY '90 to
   FY '91. However, from FY '89 to FY '91 this figure decreased moderately. Documentation of how remedial alternatives will ensure overall
   protectiveness remained at about the same levels over the last three years. The percentage of ground-water RODs documenting how the remedy will
   ensure adequate protection for RODs remained at about the same levels over the years. Moderate decreases were noted in the source-control RODs
   documenting this information from FY '89 to FY '90. Changes in these RODs from FY '89 to FY '90 were not significant.
    100
     75
  0)
  2  50
  o
 CL
      25
                89  90  91       89  90  91
               Ground Water   Source Control
             Risk to Be Reduced Within Acceptable
              Range (Description of Alternatives)
   89  90  91      89  90  91
   Ground Water  Source Control
 How Alternatives Will Ensure Overall
  89  90  91       89  90  91
 Ground Water   Source Control
How Remedy Will Ensure Adequate
Protectiveness (Comparative Analysis)    Protection (Statutory Determinations)
           Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 15 - Key Components of the Selected Remedy
     Moderate improvement in ground-water RODs addressing points of compliance was seen from FY '90. The
     percentage of RODs which address residuals management showed no significant change from FY '90 to FY
     '91. However, a moderate (high) increase was seen in source-control RODs addressing residuals
     management from FY '89 to FY '90.
            89  90 91
            Ground Water
               Points of Compliance
                   Addressed
                                   89  90  91      89 90  91
                                   Ground Water  Source Control
                                     Residuals Management
                                          Addressed
Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes* as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 16 - Key Components of the Selected Remedy
     Major improvement over last year was observed in documenting the level to which extracted ground water
     will be treated. Moderate improvement is shown from FY '90 to FY '91 in ground-water RODs providing
     clean-up levels. Moderate (high) improvements are seen in FY '91 source-control RODs in this area.
     However, the percentage of RODs documenting this information decreased from FY '89 to FY '90.	
    100
    75
 c
 0)
 ^   50
 o>
 QL
     25
             89 90  91
             Ground Water
               Extracted Ground-Water
              Treatment Level Provided
89  90 91     89  90 91
Ground Water  Source Control
 Clean-Up Levels Provided
         Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 17 - Key Components of the Selected Remedy
  No significant changes were observed from FY '90 to FY '91 in ground-water RODs providing the basis for
  clean-up levels. Moderate improvement was seen from FY '89 to FY '90 in source-control RODs documenting this
  information.  The percentage of RODs documenting the basis for soil clean-up levels rose moderately from FY '89
  to FY '90 and fell moderately (low) from FY '90 to FY '91.
    100
     75
 o>
 ££   50
     25
             89  90 91     89  90 91
             Ground Water   Source Control
              Basis for Clean-up Levels
                     Provided
            89 90  91
          Source Control
Basis for Soil Clean-up
   Levels Provided
         Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
Figure 18 - Rationale for Remedy Selection
Moderate improvement from FY '90 to FY '91 was observed for stating the rationale for the selected remedy in terms of the nine criteria.  Major
improvement was seen from FY '89 to FY '90 ground-water RODs.  In less than half the RODs, the specific criteria of the five balancing criteria
that were the most important in the selection of the remedy were discussed. No significant change was seen in ground-water RODs
documenting treatment to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) or that treatment is impracticable. Moderate improvement showed in
documenting treatment to the MEP or a finding that treatment is impracticable from FY '90 to FY '91 in source-control RODs.
    100
     75
 c
 0)
 y   50
 0)
 CL
     25
              89  90  91
              Ground Water
  89  90  91
Source Control
  89  90  91
Source Control
             Rationale for Selected Remedy
           Stated in Terms of the Nine Criteria
  89  90  91
  Ground Water
Criteria Specified That Were Most
 Important in Remedy Selection
         Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.
 89  90  91      89  90  91
 Ground Water  Source Control
Treatment to MEP or Treatment
        Impracticable

-------
Figure 19 - Interim Actions

    Most of the interim action RODs indicated that the interim action would be consistent with any future actions.  In
    addition, 63 percent of interim action RODs addressed ARARs in the Description of Alternatives.
     100
       75
 c
 0)
 2
 0)
 Q.
50
       25
                  Interim Action Consistent
                  With Any Future Actions
                                              ARARs Addressed In
                                           Description of Alternatives
           Note: Figure shows sites responding 'Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                                        OFFICE OF
                                               SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
                         SEP
NOTE TO:  Hazardous Waste Division Directors

     Attached for your  reference,  you will find your Region's
results of the FY 91 ROD Analysis.   The graphs depict trends over
the past three years in special areas that have been the focus of
the ROD Analysis.

     The following criteria  were selected to analyze the National
results which may aid you in your interpretation of the data:

               Strengths - 75%  and above
          •    Weaknesses -  50% and below
               Insignificant changes - 0% - 10%
               Moderate changes - 11% - 20%
               Major changes -  21%  or more

     If you have any questions,  please do not hesitate to call
Sharon Frey of my staff at 8-703-603-8772.
Jerry Cliffor
    •*
                                                        }
                                                        I
                                                          Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                     Region 10
Figure 1.  FY '91 RODs:  Final, Interim, and No Action
 25.0%
                                              75.0%
                                                    Final Only         3
                                                    Interim Only       1
                                                    Final and Interim    0
                                                    No Action         0
                                                            Total RODs 4

-------
                           Region 10
Figure 2. FY '91 Final Action RODs: Source Versus Ground Water
   33.3%
                                                      66.7%
                                             ••  Source Control Only              2
                                             I    I  Ground Water Only              0
                                                   Source Control and Ground Water   1
                                                                       Total RODs 3

-------
  100
   75
   50

-------
100
 75
 50
 25
                                                 Region 10

                                             Figure 4- ARARs
          89  90  91
89  90  91
89  90  91
89  90  91
          Ground Water  Source Control

                Identification of
                 RCRA Waste
                   Ground Water   Source Control

                      Determination of LDR
                           as an ARAR
                    89  90  91

                  Source Control

RCRA Closure Requirements Identified
 as ARAR (Description of Alternatives)
       Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
  100 -i
   75
§  50
£

-------
  100 -r
   75 -
§  50
   25
                                0   0
                           89  90  91

                         Source Control

             CWA Section 404 Identified
                   as an ARAR
                                                   Region 10

                                               Figure 6 - ARARs
     0   0
                    0  0
89  90  91
                89 90  91
Ground Water  Source Control

  40 CFR Part 6 Appendix A
    Identified as an ARAR
    89  90  91

    Ground Water

Non-zero MCLGs or MCLs Identified or
 Waived (Description of Alternatives)
         Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
                                           Region 10

                                        Figure 7 - Risk
   89  90  91
89  90  91
89  90  91
89  90  91
   Ground Water  Source Control

Baseline Risk Based on Reasonable
   Maximum Exposure Scenario
                   Ground Water  Source Control

                    Exposure Pathway-Specific
                     Risk Estimates Provided
Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
100
 75
 50
 25
           89  90  91
89  90  91
                                                   Region 10

                                                 Figure 8 - Risk
89  90  91
89  90  91
          Ground Water  Source Control

             Baseline Risk Identified
                   Ground Water  Source Control

                       Baseline Risk Exceeds
                            Risk Range
                                                                                                        0   0
89  90  91       89  90  91

Ground Water   Source Control

   Justification for Taking
       Action Provided
        Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
  100 -r
   75  -
<5  50
   25  -
    0  J
                             89  90  91
                           Source Control
                  Current Land Use
                      Identified
                                                      Region 10

                                                    Figure 9 - Risk
           89 90  91
         Source Control
Future Land Use
   Identified
             89  90  91

           Source Control

Basis for Future Land
    Use Provided
         Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
100
 75
 50
 25
                                                  Region 10
                                               Figure 10-Risk
           89  90 91
89  90  91
89  90  91
89  90  91
          Ground Water   Source Control
          Populations at Risk Identified
                   Ground Water  Source Control
                  Exposure Pathways Identified for
                      Each Population Group
        Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
         0   0
000
                                             Region 10

                                           Figure 11- Risk
    89  90 91
89  90  91
89  90  91
89  90  91
    Ground Water  Source Control

Chronic Daily Intake Factors Identified
  for Each Contaminant of Concern
                   Ground Water  Source Control

                    Basic Toxicity Information to
                      Calculate Risk Identified
 Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
100
           89  90 91
89  90  91
          Ground Water  Source Control

            Sources of Uncertainty in
           Risk Assessment Discussed
                                                  Region 10
                                                Figure 12-Risk
89  90  91
89  90  91
                   Ground Water  Source Control

                 Imminent & Substantial Endanger-
                     ment Statement Provided
89  90  91

Ground Water

  Potential Beneficial Use of
  Ground Water Identified
        Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
100 -i
 75  -
 50
 25
                                                  Region 10

                                               Figure 13-Risk
           89  90 91
89  90  91
89  90  91
89  90  91
89  90  91
89  90  91
          Ground Water  Source Control

            Risk to bo Reduced Within
        Acceptable Range (Description of
                  Alternatives)
                   Ground Water  Source Control

                   How Alternatives Will Ensure
                      Overall Protectiveness
                      (Comparative Analysis)
                                   Ground Water  Source Control

                                     How Remedy Will Ensure
                                  Adequate Protection (Statutory
                                         Determinations)
        Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes* as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
  100
   75
1  50
   25
                                                 Region 10

                            Figure 14 - Key Components of the Selected Remedy
            89  90 91

            Ground Water

               Points of Compliance
                   Addressed
89  90  91
89  90  91
Ground Water  Source Control

   Residuals Management
        Addressed
         Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes' as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
  100
   75
o>
Q.
   25
                                                  Region 10

                            Figure 15 - Key Components of the Selected Remedy
            89  90  91


            Ground Water


              Extracted Ground-Water

             Treatment Level Provided
89  90  91
89  90  91
Ground Water   Source Control

  Clean-Up Levels Provided
         Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------
  100
   75
   50

-------
  100
   75
§  50
   25
                                                   Region 10

                                  Figure 17 - Rationale for Remedy Selection
            89  90  91
89  90  91
            Ground Water   Source Control
89  90  91
89  90  91
                   Ground Water   Source Control
        Rationale for Selected Remedy Stated  Criteria Specified That Were Most
             in Terms of the Nine Criteria         Important in Remedy Selection
89  90  91
89  90  91
                                  Ground Water  Source Control

                                  Treatment to MEP or Treatment
                                          Impracticable
         Note: Figure shows sites responding "Yes" as a percentage of total sites responding to each question.

-------