Quality Document Examples (Record of Decision of the Year Contest)

Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004 Record of Decision of the Year Awards

The purpose of the Record of Decision (ROD) of the Year Contest is to foster increased awareness of decision document quality. The ROD of the Year is selected by a panel of Headquarters and Regional EPA staff. Selection of the ROD of the Year is based on clear documentation that is consistent with the Superfund Program's policy and regulations and is not based on an evaluation of the selected remedy. A contest was held in past years for RODs written in Fiscal Years (FYs) 1999 through 2003. A contest was held in March 2005 for RODs written in FY 2004. The award winner for RODs written in FY 2004 and for previous years are listed below along with links to the winning RODs.

Find Superfund ROD documents, including ROD of the year documents by searching on the search Superfund RODs page:

Find Superfund ROD Documents

ROD of the Year Winner FY 2004 -- Many Diversified Interests, Inc. Written by the team of Rafael Casanova, Stacey Bennett, and Gary G. Miller, Remedial Project Managers, Region 6, addresses contaminated soil and ground water. The ROD follows agency guidance and is well organized and clearly written. Well documented sections of the ROD include:

Section 13.0: Descriptive land and ground water use that provides a specific basis for future use of the site
Section 14.1.5: Site specific description of risk characterization uncertainties with accompanying table (see Table 11)
Figures 13 - 17: Detailed maps of ground water plume
Tables: Overall, excellent tables with a good description in text of the tables (For example, see tables in both the Risk (Tables 1 - 11) and Comparative Analysis sections (Table 16)

ROD of the Year Winner FY 2003 -- Riverfront. Written by Shelley Brodie, Remedial Project Manager, Region 7, addresses contaminated soil and ground water. A well written narrative along with photographs and a detailed table of contents make the ROD user friendly. Among the well documented sections of the ROD are:

Section 7:1: Complete summary tables for Human Health Risk (see Tables 7-1 - 7-11)
Section 7.2: Detailed diagram of the Ecological Exposure Model (Figure 3-1)
Sections 8.2; 9.1. 2; 10.0 & 12.2: Specific description of Institutional Controls
Section 10: Thorough Comparative Analysis for the Remedial Alternatives including Table 10-1
Section 12.4: Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy includes a good description of anticipated redevelopment activities for the site.

ROD of the Year Runner-up FY 2003 -- Mackenzie Chemical Works. Written by Mark Granger, Remedial Project Manager, Region 2 documents a remedy for contaminated soil and ground water. The ROD follows the guidelines in the Agency's ROD Guidance for documenting a remedy. Well documented sections of the ROD include:

NOTE: Sections are not numbered in the MacKenzie ROD
Page 26: Complete Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Page 35: Good Selected Remedy description, including, a well written rational for selecting the remedy and estimated cost of the remedy. (Also see Cost Tables 15 & 16 in Appendix II)
Pages iii & 35: A Contingency Remedy for both ground water and soil is discussed in the ROD along with the Selected Remedy.

ROD of the Year Other Runner-up FY 2003 -- Midvale Slag (Operable Unit 2). Written by Frances Costanzi, Remedial Project Manager, Region 8, addresses contaminated ground water, soil, mixed waste and slag waste. The ROD closely follows guidelines in the ROD Guidance for documenting a remedy. Some of the well documented sections of the ROD include:

Sections 5.1 & 7. 1.2: Excellent graphic depiction of the Conceptual Site Model (see Figures 5-1 and 7-2)
Section 7: Good text discussion in Summary of Site Risks. (Also, see Risk Tables 7-1 through 7-24 in Appendix B.)
Section 10: Good Comparative Analysis Tables (see Tables 10-1 through 10-3 in Appendix B)
Section 6: Comprehensive Land Use and Redevelopment discussion. (For additional redevelopment discussion see the Declaration, Section 4 - Scope and Role, Section 8 - Remedial Action Objectives, Section 9.4 - Description of Alternatives and Section 12.5 - Expected Outcomes of the Remedy.)

ROD of the Year Winner FY 2002 (tied) -- Cooper Drum Company. Written by Eric Yunker, Remedial Project Manager, Region 9, addresses contaminated soil and groundwater. The ROD closely follows documentation guidelines in the ROD Guidance and includes easy to read tables embedded in the text. Some of the well-documented sections of the ROD include:

Section 5.1: Good text and diagram for Conceptual Site Model (CSM) (also see section 7.1.2 which references the CSM in exposure pathway discussion)
Section 7.0: Excellent site specific risk discussion and complete risk tables
Section 12.2: Institutional Controls discussed in terms of objectives, mechanisms and enforcement
Section 12.3: Provides major sources of uncertainty for the Selected Remedy cost estimate
Section 12.4: Good discussion linking expected outcomes of the Selected Remedy to the Remedial Action Objectives

ROD of the Year Winner FY 2002 (tied) -- Reasor Chemical Company. Written by Samantha Urquhart-Foster, Remedial Project Manager, Region 4, addresses contaminated soil, sediments, surface water and groundwater. A well written narrative along with photographs and a detailed table of contents make this ROD user friendly. Well-documented sections of the ROD include:

Section 2.5.1: Ecological Conceptual Site Model
Section 2.7.1.5: Well defined uncertainty analysis for human health risk
Section 2.9.2: Good description of expected outcomes and distinguishing features of the alternatives
Section 2.10: Thorough narrative for the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives plus a table (see Table 43)
Section 2.12.1: Clear rationale for the Selected Remedy presented in the context of comparison to other alternatives

ROD of the Year Winner FY 2001 (tied) -- Aerojet General Corporation/Western Groundwater, Operable Unit 3. Written by Charles Berrey, Remedial Project Manager, Region 9, addresses groundwater contamination. The ROD is written in clear concise language that made the rationale for taking action clear. Well-documented sections of the ROD include:

Section 2.7: Complete Risk Summary Tables
Section 2.10: Comparative Analysis of Alternatives (includes Table 2.8 and text)
Section 2.12: Clear rationale for the selected remedy
Section 2.12.3: Detailed cost summary expressed in discounted and non discounted amounts (see Tables 2.11 - 2.13)
Section 2.12.4: Good table showing cleanup levels including risk at cleanup level (see Table 2.14)
Section 2.13.2: Table which clearly identifies site-specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) (see Table 2.16)

ROD of the Year Winner FY 2001 (tied) -- Fremont National Forest/White King/Lucky Lass. Written by William Adams, Remedial Project Manager, Region 10, addresses contaminated soil, waste rock, sediments and surface water. The ROD is easy to read and the rationale for selecting the remedy was transparent. Well-documented sections of the ROD include:

Sections 5.1 & 7.1.2: Comprehensive description of the Conceptual Site Model (see Figures 5.1 & 5.2)
Section 7.1: Risk Summary (see tables in Appendix B)
Sections 7.1.6.3 & 7.2.8: Complete discussion of risk uncertainties
Section 8.2: Well-developed Remedial Action Objectives
Section 12.1: Transparent rationale for the Selected Remedy
Section 12.2.1: Specific description of Institutional Controls

ROD of the Year Winner FY 2000 -- Eastern Surplus. Written by Edward Hathaway, Remedial Project Manager, Region 1, addresses contaminated groundwater. Some of the well-documented sections of the ROD include:

Section E-2: Conceptual Site Model (text description)
Section F: Land Use (good table)
Section G: Complete risk tables and clarifying text
Section G: Site specific description of risk uncertainties
Section L-3: Detailed cost estimate for remedy

ROD of the Year Runner-up FY 2000 -- Northwest Pipe and Casing/Hall Process Company (Operable Unit 1). Written by Alan Goodman, Remedial Project Manager, Region 10, addresses contaminated soil and debris. Some of the well-documented sections of the ROD include:

Section 7.5: Site specific discussion of principal threat waste
Section 6.3: Summary of Human Health Risk
Section 7.0: Explanation of how cleanup levels were derived
Section 7.1: Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) (see Table 7-1 which connects RAOs to contaminants of concern and remedial goals)
Section 10.3: Expected land use at the conclusion of the remedy

ROD of the Year Winner FY 1999 -- Pacific Sound Resources. Written by Sally Thomas, Remedial Project Manager, Region 10, addresses contaminated soil, sludge, sediments and groundwater. Some of the well-documented sections of the ROD include:

Section 5.1: Conceptual Site Model (see Figure 3-good diagram)
Section 7.3: Summary of Ecological Risks
Section 8.3.1: Alternate Concentration Levels (ACLs) for Groundwater (also see Table 20)
Sections 9.2.4 & 10.7: Remedy Cost Analysis (also see Table 25)