EPA FACT SHEET JULY 1990
                                   
                Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
                
                For Bloomington, Indiana
                
     Q. What is a remedial investigation/feasibility study?
     
     A. An RI/FS consists of a field investigation which examines the
        type and extent of site contamination and identifies
        possible remedies or alternatives for site conditions. Upon
        approval of the RI/FS reports, a preferred alternative is
        recommended and public comment is taken on it. Once the
        preferred alternative is chosen, EPA prepares a Record of
        Decision (ROD) which outlines the steps needed to mitigate
        the site problems, documents why that particular alternative
        was chosen, and responds to all public comments received
        during the public comment period. '

     Q. Why are they done? What information do they give you?

     A. The RI/FS provides enough information to make a decision to
        remedy site problems. While it may not thoroughly analyze
        every contaminant or problem at a site, it does recognize
        and analyze the problems enough to provide information to
        choose the proper alternative.

     Q. Are they required at all sites? Under what authority?

     A. Under Section 300.430 of the March 8, 1990 National
        Contingency Plan (NCP), the purpose of the RI/FS is to
        implement remedies that eliminate, reduce or control risks
        to human health and the environment. An RI/FS is required
        for investigations for sites that appear on the National
        Priorities List (NPL).

     Q. Why didn't EPA do one for the Bloomington and Monroe County
        PCB sites?

     A. EPA first became aware of the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
        problems in Bloomington in the mid-1970's before the
        Superfund law existed. By late 1980, EPA legal and technical
        staff had developed an enforcement case against Westinghouse
        Corporation for PCB contamination at Neal's Landfill and
        Neal's Dump under the authorities of the Clean Water Act and
        the Toxic Substances Control Act. EPA used a
        multi-disciplinary team-of technical experts to identify the
        problem and find feasible solutions. The Superfund law was
        passed in late 1980 and EPA shifted its case and filed a
        Superfund complaint against Westinghouse. Concurrently, the
        City and County were also filing suits against Westinghouse
        for PCB contamination cleanup at the Lemon Lane and Anderson
        Road Landfills.
         
     
        Because of the ongoing litigation and because there was no
        formal EPA guidance available on how to conduct an RI/FS ,
        EPA did not do a formal one for these sites. Rather, the
        team of experts and litigation witnesses conducted a number
        of studies that identified the problems and proposed
        solutions. Much of the rationale and decisions made
        regarding alternatives selection was conducted through
        review by the experts and meetings with the litigation team.
        Consequently, a considerable amount of rationale and
        explanation as to EPA's decision-making process or
        alternatives assessment was not
        documented.

        Finally, because the Superfund enforcement program was new,
        there were not the formal procedures which are now in place
        to conduct RI/FS's at responsible party lead sites.

     Q. You say one was not required when EPA was investigating these
        sites and when you were negotiating the consent decree.
        Isn't one required now? Why don't you do one now?

     A. If EPA were to undertake this case today, we would follow the
        current NCP and all relevant guidance documents regarding
        the development of an RI/FS. However, since a consent decree
        was signed as the vehicle to implement the solution to the
        problem, EPA is required to follow its requirements.
        Conducting an RI/FS now would give the impression the EPA
        could impose the findings of the alternatives assessment
        provided it would be different than incineration. Since the
        decision has already been made and embodied into the consent
        decree, conducting an RI/FS now would only raise false
        expectations that an alternative remedy would be considered.

     Q. You say that you have done a functional equivalent for an
        RI/FS during the negotiations. What exactly did EPA do and
        how is it equivalent to the RI/FS process?

     A. EPA convened a multi-disciplinary team of experts to develop
        the necessary documentation for ongoing litigation with
        Westinghouse. Therefore, EPA did not create a vast array of
        technical documents that outlined its enforcement approach.
        Rather EPA's consultants did generate quite a bit of site
        specific data which is available to the public at the Monroe
        County Public Library. ,

        However, EPA did create two reports which are similar to the
        RI/FS procedures as outlined in the July 16, 1982, NCP
        entitled "Remedial Alternatives Assessment for Neal's
        Landfill" and "Remedial Alternatives Assessment" for Neal's
        Dump (both dated July, 1983). For the other consent decree
        sites (Lemon Lane Landfill, Bennet's Stone Quarry,
        Winston-Thomas Treatment Plant and Anderson Road Landfill),
        any technical documents, affidavits or expert witness
        depositions dated prior to EPA's Enforcement Decision
        Document (EDD) dated December 4, 1984 would be the relevant
        documents to review. Finally, EPA's decision-making
        procedures are identified in the EDD.


     Q. Will EPA compile the information which constitutes the RI/FS
        equivalent?

     A. EPA will not create a document which identifies an RI/FS
        equivalent. That decision reflects the following facts:

             1) No such formal compilation of documents identifying the
                RI/FS equivalent has been done.
             
             2) Creating such a document now would only approximate the
                rationale and information used to perform the
                investigation and alternatives assessment. touch of
                that work was discussed during litigation meetings and
                was undocumented.
             
             3) Doing so would serve very little constructive purpose
                and devoting efforts towards compiling such a document
                now would redirect EPA's efforts away from other
                current projects such as the Fell Iron and Metal
                Decision Document, cleanup efforts at the Westinghouse
                plant site, she Lemon Lane Landfill monitoring plan
                and our efforts to move the consent decree process
                forward.
     
     Q. What process did you follow in 1984 and 1985 and why did the
        public have to get the administrative record from a Freedom
        of Information Request?

     A. EPA was in litigation with the Westinghouse Corporation and
        kept many documents confidential. Once the case was settled
        out of court, the administrative record became public
        documents which are available under the Freedom of
        Information Act. Since then, the record has been added to
        the repository at the Monroe County Public Library.

     Q. What is an EDD and why was it done in Bloomington? Is this
        normal for consent decrees?

     A. An EDD was EPA's method of developing case information for
        responsible party lead sites during the early years of the
        Superfund program. The EDD was, in this case, enforcement
        confidential and not open to public scrutiny or public
        involvement. At the time, this was Agency policy in
        developing enforcement cases for either out of court
        settlement or trial. Since then, the process has been
        changed and RODS are developed for all Superfund NPL sites,
        regardless if it is a responsible party or fund lead site.