SUPERFUND Records Of Decision Update From: Hazardous Site Control Division To: EPA Regional Offices May 19, 1986 Vol. 2, No. 3 J HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ROD WORKSHOP The FY'86 ROD Workshop was held in Washington, D.C. on February 25-26 and was re- peated in Dallas, Texas, on March 18-19. In all, about 150 technical and legal staff at- tended. The workshop was divided into two parts. The first portion of the program addressed a number of procedural and process issues related to ROD preparation and dissemination, including a review of ROD components and discussions concerning review on the record, the role of EDDs and NDDs versus RODs, revis- ing RODs, ROD delegations, the ROD information network, and the state's role in the ROD pro- cess. The second half of the pro- gram was devoted to timely technical policy issues, in- cluding the Off-Site Policy, evaluation of alternative tech- nologies, a number of ground water issues, "how clean is clean," RCRA consistency, risk assessment, the role of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), PCB cleanup approaches, soil contamination, and cleanup of municipal landfills. Presentations were made by a cross-section of Headquarters and Regional staff. The National ROD Workgroup, which spon- sored the workshops, continues to plan for future ROD training. Any suggestions from Regional staff regarding topics such train- ing should address and alter- native formats that should be ex- plored are most welcome. Please phone your ideas in to Workgroup chairwoman Mary Gade (FTS 886-7579) or Bill Han- son of HSCD (FTS 382-2345). Following are highlights of the recent workshops. REVIEW ON THE RECORD • "On the record review" means that courts consider only materials available at the time of a decision and seek to determine whether or not deci- sions were arbitrary and capricious. • Courts may look "behind the record" if: 1. The record is incomplete 2. Explanations as to how public comments were ad- dressed are inadequate 3. The Agency does not ade- quately explain the ra- tionale for decisions • EPA responsibilities are to: 1. Build a complete record (all information considered in decisionmaking) 2. Describe alternatives under consideration and reasons for accepting or rejecting them 3. Respond to all relevant comments and criticisms that are submitted 4. Document our resolution of all major issues and explain the basis for final decisions • EPA may use but should not rely upon classified or privileg- ed information in building a record or making ROD deci- sions. • OGC and OECM are currently developing policy and guid- ance that will describe EPA's responsibilities in detail. Contact: Steve Leifer OECM FTS 382-3077 Dan Berry OGC FTS 382-7703 ROLE OF NDDs AND EDDs • There are three types of Super- fund remedy selection docu- ments: 1. Records of Decision (RODs) for Fund-financed sites 2. Enforcement Decision Documents (EDDs) for PRP settlements 3. Negotiation Decision Docu- ments (NDDs). NDDs are development documents or ------- pre-EDDs that may be used as strategy documents for negotiating settlements with PRPs. Essentially, the ROD and EDD decision documents are used for remedy selec- tion under §10.4 and §106 of CERCLA, respectively. NDDs are Enforcement Confidential, and are not re- Teased' to the public, but they may be discoverable in a lawsuit. • To the greatest extent possi- ble, States should follow EPA's process for preparing remedy selection documents, although EPA may not require that State RODs, NDDs, and EDDs look exactly like EPA documents. • Regions use NDDs to varying degrees. Some find them use- ful; others prefer to simply brief Regional Administrators on negotiations. Contacts: Mary Gade Region V ORC FTS 886-7579 Frank Biros OWPE FTS 382-4844 REVISING RODs • If significant new information surfaces after a ROD is signed, EPA should: 1. Supplement the administra- tive record with relevant in- formation that could affect the assumptions or conclu- sions in a ROD, and de- pending on the significance of that information, docu- ment the Agency's consid- eration of the new informa- tion (e.g., information that significantly affects the cost-effectiveness deter- mination), and explain why the ROD is or is not being revised. 2. On a case-by-case basis, Superfund program staff, in consultation with ORC I OGC and Community Rela- tions staff, must decide whether information, and the possibility of ROD revision warrants an addi- tional public comment period and revised respon- siveness summary. 3 A ROD must be revised if new information changes the ROD'S conclusions so significantly that the failure to re-evaluate the remedy would be an abuse of discretion or would be ir- responsible. In general a re- evaluation is prudent if the Agency would have chosen a different remedy had the new information been available when the original ROD was signed. When EPA changes a remedy, NCP requirements must continue to be met. Contacts: Maureen Smith/ Dan Berry OGC FTS 382-7703 Daphne Gemmill Superfund Com- munity Relations FTS 382-2460 OFF SITE POLICY • In effect since June 1985, the Off-Site Policy specifies pro- cedures for off-site action and prohibits the use of RCRA facilities with "significant" (Class I) violations or serious problems Any off-site facili- ties used for hazardous waste disposal must be permitted or have interim status. • Any off-site facility that has significant RCRA violations may be used if: 1 The owner/operator has consented (through an en- forcement agreement) to correct the problems that caused the violations, and 2. Disposal occurs at a unit within the facility that is in compliance. • Additional considerations: 1. Treatment, recycle, or re- use facilities are preferred under the policy. 2. Disposal units with double liners and leachate collec- tion systems are required by the the Off-Site Policy (an exception is provided). 3 Ineligible facilities must be properly notified of their in- eligibility. Guidance is forthcoming. 4. Regions should consider maintaining a list of all eligi- ble facilities in their Region. 5. Regions should also con- sider keeping lists of facilities that are out of compliance. 6 Regional management in the Region where the facili- ty is located is responsible for determining whether the facility is eligible. 7 Definition of other environ- mental conditions that may lead to ineligibility on grounds other than viola- tions is a Regional deter- mination. 8. A standard form has been prepared and is in use for reporting what wastes are shipped where and when for Fund- and Enforcement- lead sites. This is the first step in the development of an overall data manage- ment system. 9. In the absence of eligible facilities, Regions should consider: - Urging RCRA program staff to put additional pressure on facilities to correct compliance prob- lems - Exploring onsite reme- dies, particularly treat- ment/destruction technol- ogies. - Considering onsite stabil- ization or storage. -Consolidating wastes from noncontiguous sites and disposing of these on one site. Contact: Mike Kilpatrick OWPE FTS 475-8253 ------- EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES • A new emphasis on technolo- gies that destroy or detoxify hazardous substances and result in highly reliable, long- term remedies which require only minimal O & M should be reflected in FY'86 RODs. • Regions are encouraged to undertake thorough waste characterization and make ear- ly decisions regarding what wastes are immediate can- didates for treatment or destruction (e.g , recycla- ble/recoverable wastes or wastes unsuitable or illegal to land dispose, such as ignitable/corrosive/reactive/ incompatible wastes, liquid waste, liquids containing 500 ppm PCBs.) • RPMs should follow the NCP's cost-effectiveness decision- making framework with a special focus on the following factors: 1. Cost a. Distribution of costs over time (present worth and sensitivity analysis) b. Operation and mainten- ance (replacement cost of structures) 2. Reliability — Long-term ef- fectiveness of remedy 3 Level of protectiveness — Overall risk reduction • Guidance will be developed following CERCLA reauthori- zation, which is expected to place greater emphasis on the use of alternative technolo- gies In the meantime, Head- quarters will work with the Regions on a site-by-site basis to ensure full consideration of alternative technologies at the remaining FY '86 sites. Contact: HSCD Regional Coordinator or Bill Hanson HSCD FTS 382-2345 GROUND WATER • Superfund's implementation of EPA's Ground Water Protec- tion Strategy will seek rapid cleanups of all current and potential drinking water (Class I, Class IIA, and Class MB ground waters) where this is cost effective. The Superfund approach is in keeping with the strategy's premise that ground water should be pro- tected for its highest bene- ficial use • Ground water alternatives should be developed that will provide health-based levels or a 10-7 to 10-" risk level for car- cinogens that do not have standards for current and potential exposure. • Alternatives should be design- ed to attain this risk range within a reasonable period of time because EPA is not cer- tain that institutional controls can protect the public effec- tively during a long remedial process. An EPA workgroup is trying to determine the cir- cumstances under which in- stitutional controls can be reliably used. • In the FS, at least one alter- native should be developed and evaluated that would restore ground water to a 10-6 risk level within a short period of time (approximately 1 to 5 years). This alternative should be used as the point of depar- ture in the analysis of the cost- effectiveness of ground water alternatives. • Various factors should be con- sidered in the cost-effective- ness analysis, including: 1. Rate of restoration desired 2 Anticipated future need for ground water 3 Effectiveness of institu- tional control during reme- diation 4. Cost 5. Ability to provide an alter- native water supply The emphasis given to each factor may vary depending on the classification of the ground water involved. For ex- ample, rapid restoration is more strongly preferred for Class I ground waters than for Class MB ground waters Contact: Bill Hanson HSCD FTS 382-2345 ATSDR • EPA has an MOU with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) by which ATSDR provides in- put to risk assessment focus- ing on human health risks Under the MOU, EPA agrees to send ATSDR copies of all RIs and FSs for review. • EPA may request ATSDR to determine whether existing conditions pose a particular threat to the community at a site, based on EPA's risk assessment, particularly in cases where direct contact with a hazardous substance exists ATSDR may also pro- vide an initial health consulta- tion or a more comprehensive health assessment. • ATSDR may issue a Health Ad- visory that assesses risk but does not recommend how to manage risk (e.g., it may recommend disassociation of people from direct contact without specifying how to ac- complish that). • EPA should not ask ATSDR to determine an appropriate "how clean is clean" target or concentration level to manage the risk. In commenting on alternatives, ATSDR should in- dicate whether the remedies are protective but generally should not develop specific cleanup levels The final ROD should indicate consistency with any ATSDR Health Ad- visory, recognizing that most ATSDR advisories may not relate to possible future use or all affected media. ------- • Under the Policy on CERCLA Compliance with Other En- vironmental Acts, Health Ad- visories are "to be considered" rather than used as re- quirements. Contact: Craig Zamuda PAS FTS 382-2201 ROD SUMMARIES CANNON ENGINEERING CORPORATION REGION I MASSACHUSETTS (Approved 9/3/85) Description: • The site supported a manufac- turing company. Three large tanks onsite held various chemicals and fuel oil. In 1983, one of the tanks was found to be leaking. A possibility of ground water and surface water contamination exists Decision: • Remove and dispose of tank and exposed piping offsite as a first operable unit. • Defer decision on control of contaminants in sediment, ground water, and surface water until further studies can be completed. Issues: • Floodplain analysis, including effect of tides, to be com- pleted as part of further study. • Ultimate decision deferred, but action will be taken to remove potential source of im- mediate danger. Contacts: • Region: Greg Rosco FTS 223-5911 • Headquarters: Bill Kaschak FTS 382-2348 MOYER LANDFILL REGION III PENNSYLVANIA (Approved 9/30/85) Description: • This site was a privately owned and operated landfill that accepted a variety of hazardous wastes through 1981 when it was closed and brought into court receiver- ship. Leachate and seeps from the site show above-ambient levels of eight organic pollutants and four metals. Beta radiation in the leachate is above standards promul- gated by the World Health Organization. Monitoring wells onsite, a creek running nearby, and fish in the creek all show detectable levels of pollutants, but the levels are less than those provided in the stan- dards. Decision: • Implement first alternative remedy if remedial action is to be accomplished by receiver and PRPs. • Implement second alternative remedy if remedial action is not to be accomplished by receiver and PRPs. • First alternative remedy in- cludes capping site to a depth of 36 inches with a material that has a permeability of 10-" to 10-5; collecting surface water and discharging into creek; monitoring ground and surface water; collecting and treating leachate; extracting and scrubbing methane gas prior to selling to distributor; closing site to RCRA stan- dards once gas collection is complete. • Second alternative remedy in- cludes capping site to RCRA standards. Issues: • Two alternative decisions; im- plementation dependent upon agreement with receiver and PRPs. • Remedial action may be under- taken by receiver and PRPs • Methane gas may be sold to municipal supplier • Final remedy closure will be delayed for 10 to 20 years if the first remedy is implemented. Contacts: • Region. Stephanie Del Re FTS 597-3161 • Headquarters. Lisa Woodson FTS 475-8246 AMERICAN CREOSOTE REGION IV FLORIDA (Approved 9/30/85) Description: • This 12-acre site was used to treat wood products from 1902 to 1981. Creosote was used ex- clusively until 1950, when pen- tachlorophenol began to be used. Contaminated sludges, liquids, and sediments were held onsite in two unlined storage lagoons, which at times overflowed onto the sur- face. Contamination was found in ground water and in ground water seeping into sur- face water ditches flowing toward the nearby bay. In September 1983, an immediate removal action was taken at the site to drain and stabilize the onsite ponds to prevent further overflow. Decision: • Defer decision on manage- ment of migration of con- taminants until more data can be obtained. • As a first operable unit, ex- cavate contaminated soils and sludge both on- and offsite; dispose of offsite in RCRA landfill. Issues: • Defer decision on manage- ment of migration. Contacts: • Region: Jim Barksdale FTS 257-2647 • Headquarters: Lisa Woodson FTS 475-8246 A & F MATERIALS/ GREENUP REGION V ILLINOIS (Approved 6/14/85) Description • The company reprocessed ------- Chemical waste materials into fuel oil and fire retardants on the 3% acre site from 1977 to f980. In 1978, four storage lagoons overflowed into the Embarras River. In 1980 and 1982, emergency response ac- tions were taken by EPA to stabilize site conditions Decision: • Remove and dispose of offsite all soils contaminated beyond recommended action levels, including soils with greater than 1 ppm PCB • Monitor ground water; test the soil under the building and, if necessary, dispose of this soil. • Clean and remove all onsite equipment and structures • Regrade site; remove fence Contacts: • Region: Karen Waldvogel FTS 886-4741 • Headquarters Kevin Rochlin FTS 475-7026 A LINE ON RODs SIX MORE ROD APPROVALS Region III approved two more RODs on March 18,1986; one for the Taylor Borough, Penn- sylvania, site and a no-action ROD for the Middletown Road, Maryland, site Region IV signed a ROD for the Leetown, West Virginia, site on March 21, and Region VIII signed a ROD for the Denver Radium Streets, Col- orado, site on March 24. On May 7, Region III signed a ROD for the Millcreek, Pennsylvania, site and Region VI approved a ROD for the Cecil Lindsey, Arkansas, site This makes a total of eight RODs signed thus far in FY'86. ADDITIONAL NTIS ACCESSION NUMBERS A number of additional RODs are now available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). The accession numbers required to order the documents are provided below. Region Site/State Signature Date NTIS Accession No I Charles George, MA* 7/11/85 PB86 172392/AS Hocomonco Pond, MA 9/30/85 PB86 172400/AS Nyanza Chemical, MA 9/4/85 PB86 172418/AS Cannon/Plymouth, MA 9/30/85 PB86 172426/AS II Sinclair Refinery, NY 9/30/85 PB86 172434/AS GEMS Landfill, NJ 9/27/85 PB86 172442/AS Helen Kramer, NJ 9/27/85 PB86 172459/AS Swope Oil, NJ 9/27/85 PB86 172467/AS Bog Creek Farm, NJ 9/30/85 PB86 172475/AS Lipari Landfill, NJ* 9/30/85 PB86 172483/AS III Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD 9/30/85 PB86 172533/AS Douglassville, PA 9/27/85 PB86 172541/AS Moyer Landfill, PA 9/30/85 PB86 172566/AS IV American Creosote, FL 9/30/85 PB86 172491/AS V Lehillier/Mankato, MN 9/27/85 PB86 172509/AS Forest Waste, Ml (IRM) 2/29/84 PB86 172558/AS New Brighton/St Anthony, MN (IRM) 8/2/84 PB86 172517/AS X Western Processing, WA 8/5/84 PB85 214195/AS Western Processing, WA* 9/25/85 PB86 172525/AS "Second Remedial Action ROD WORKSHOP: THE MOVIE The Washington session of the ROD Workshop held on Febru- ary 25-26, 1986, was filmed by Steve Ostrodtka of Region V. The film has been edited and is available on six tapes that can be played on a VHS videocas- sette recorder (VCR). If you would like to borrow the tapes to play for Regional or State staff members who were unable to at- tend either the Washington or Dallas workshops, call Betsy Shaw at FTS 382-3304 WARN- ING: This material is for mature audiences only. No one under 17 should be admitted without a parent or guardian. ------- |