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.

-------