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.
------- |