Jump to main content or area navigation.

Contact Us

Superfund


? ?

Record of Decision (ROD)-of-the-Year Contest

FY 1999 Through FY 2004 Awards

The purpose of the 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.

You will need the free Adobe Reader to view the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more.

ROD-of-the-Year Winner FY 2004 - Many Diversified Interests, Inc. (PDF) (5.5 MB, 149 pp) 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 (PDF) (1.1 MB, 109 pp) 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 (PDF) (6.3M, 153 pp) 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) (PDF) (8.4 MB, 244 pp) 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 (PDF) (638 K, 95 pp) 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 (PDF) (7.2 MB, 112 pp) 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, (PDF) (900 K, 231 pp) 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 (PDF) (3.8 MB, 222 pp) 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 (PDF) (1.9 MB, 157 pp) 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) (PDF) (5.3 MB, 179 pp) 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 (PDF) (2.6 MB, 282 pp) 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)

 

Superfund Help: Acronyms | Topics | Frequent Questions | Publications | Sitemap

OSWER Home | Superfund Home | Innovative Technologies Home