Superfund: Past experiences and new directions

Ten case studies of Superfund sites were done by the University of Tennessee's Waste Management Research and Education Institute. The case studies, which focused on stakeholder perspectives of site processes, revealed a number of problems with the Superfund process. They also revealed that some improvements had begun to take place. Recently, several modifications have been instituted in the Superfund program. Although it is too early to determine their efficacy, it appears that the Superfund program is beaded in the right direction.     

Case study: Conducting an accelerated cleanup at a superfund site in a mixed residential and industrial area

This article presents a case study of an accelerated cleanup conducted by EPA at the Adams Plating Company (APC) Superfund site near Lansing, Michigan. The APC site remediation was a Superfund EPA-lead project under the remedial program in Region 5. An accelerated cleanup was possible at the APC site by consistently identifying, evaluating, and implementing opportunities to streamline the remedial investigation (RI) and remedial design (RD) process. Streamlining opportunities were discovered and implemented in both the technical and administrative aspects of the project. Streamlining components used to accelerate the remedial process included: (1) extensive use of field screening techniques during the Phase II RI; (2) a focused feasibility study (FS) that evaluated only practical alternatives; (3) maintaining project momentum by initiating the RD concurrent with the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD); (4) a highly accelerated RD with limited predesign work; (5) elimination of the transition period between RD and remedial action (RA) project phases; (6) frequent and effective communication, coordination, and cooperation between all parties involved (EPA, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), technical contractor, PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC), and the public); (7) maintaining a consistent project team throughout project duration; and (8) the setting of aggressive project goals.     

Superfund cleanup: Designing containment remedies for recreational reuse

In July, 1999, EPA announced its Superfund Redevelopment Initiative, the Agency's effort to help communities bring Superfund sites back into productive use in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. As part of the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative, the Agency is developing reuse design guides that provide technical information related to the design of remedies that safely support reuse. The design guides focus on the reuse of containment sites, and address such topics as settlement, gas control, irrigation, drainage, and operation and maintenance. Case studies of redeveloped sites are also presented in the guides. EPA is currently developing design guides that address the reuse of Superfund sites for commercial purposes, wildlife areas, parking lots, recreational sports fields, and golf courses. This article provides information on the first guide in the series‐the reuse of Superfund sites for recreational purposes.     

Using an innovative criteria weighting tool for stakeholders involvement to rank MSW facility sites with the AHP

The main aim of this study was to verify the efficacy of using an innovative criteria weighting tool (the “priority scale”) for stakeholders involvement to rank a list of suitable municipal solid waste (MSW) facility sites with the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) technique known as analytic hierarchy process (AHP). One of the main objectives of the study was to verify the behaviour of the “priority scale” with both technical and non-technical decision-makers. All over the world, the siting of MSW treatment or disposal plants is a complex process involving politicians, technicians as well as citizens, where stakeholders who are not effectively involved strongly oppose (or even obstruct) the realization of new facilities. In this study, in order to pursue both the technical (select the best site) and social aims (all the stakeholders have to give their aware contribution), the use of the “priority scale” is suggested as a tool to easily collect non-contradictory criteria preferences by the various decision-makers. Every decision-maker filled in “priority scale”, which was subsequently uploaded in the AHP tool in order to indirectly calculate the individual priority of alternatives given by each stakeholder (not using group aggregation techniques). The proposed method was applied to the siting of a composting plant in an area suffering from a serious MSW emergency, which has lasted for over 15 years, in the Campania Region, in Southern Italy. The best site (the “first choice”) was taken as the one that appeared the most times at the first place of each decision-maker ranking list. The involved technical and non-technical decision-makers showed the same behaviour in (indirectly) selecting the best site as well as in terms of the most appraised criteria (“absence of areas of the highest value for natural habitats and species of plants and animals”). Moreover, they showed the same AHP inconsistency ratio as well as the same behaviour in comparison with a “balanced decision-maker” (who assigns identical weights to all the considered criteria). Therefore, the proposed criteria weighting tool could be widely as well as easily used for stakeholders involvement to rank MSW facility sites (or other kinds of alternatives) with the AHP or with other MCDM techniques, taking or not into consideration group aggregation methods.     

SITE Program Success: Cost Savings to Government and Increased Revenue for Technology Vendors

The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program is a program mandated by Congress through the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The original Superfund allowed no provisions for research and development of needed remediation technologies. Problems arose when the demand for involved, complex treatment could not be met by the traditional contain, haul, and dispose process that hazardous waste handlers had become familiar with. In response to the increasing complexity of hazardous waste site remediation, SARA called for an “Alternative or Innovative Treatment Technology Research and Demonstration Program.” As a result, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Office of Research and Development established the SITE program. This article is a historical analysis of the unique cost savings of the SITE program.     

A local solution to superfund clean-up: The southeast rockford site

On January 13, 1999 a consent decree was signed for the first community settlement ever successfully negotiated for a Superfund site. The 10-square mile groundwater study zone in Rockford, Illinois, is only 20 percent of the area of the city, but represents 60 percent of its industrial capacity. Local government and business leaders took the initiative to negotiate a community-based settlement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and find financing mechanisms that citizens could back. Rockford dodged the Superfund bullet that has ripped apart so many other communities as bank loans dry up, development ceases, local taxes plunge along with property values, the local economy stagnates, and neighbor is pitted against neighbor in a litigation war.     

Application of In-Situ Vitrification at the Parsons Chemical Site

This article presents the results of demonstration of Geosafe Corporation's in-situ vitrification (ISV) technology at the Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund site in Grand Ledge, Michigan. The primary focus of this article is on the EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program assessment of the sixth melt. A total of eight melts were performed during this project. This demonstration was part of the SITE Program Demonstration (USEPA, 1994), which helped develop innovative hazardous waste treatment technologies, especially those offering permanent remedies for contaminated Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. The demonstration results are not only applicable to this particular project, but are also indicative of other Geosafe project experiences and demonstrate the current state of the ISV technology. The demonstration included two phases. In the first phase, the ISV technology was used to treat the Parsons contaminated soil. In the second phase, post-testing and analysis were conducted about one year after the ISV technology was applied to confirm that the vitrification was completed and that no contamination migration had occurred.     

Superfund site remediation by landfilling—overview of landfill design,operation, closure,and postclosure issues

This article discusses the appropriateness of using landfills as part of remediating hazardous chemical and Superfund sites, with particular emphasis on providing for true long‐term public health and environmental protection from the wastes and contaminated soils that are placed in the landfills. On‐site landfilling or capping of existing wastes is typically the least expensive approach for gaining some remediation of existing hazardous chemical/Superfund sites. The issues of the deficiencies in US EPA and state landfilling approaches discussed herein are also applicable to the landfilling of municipal and industrial solid “nonhazardous” wastes. These deficiencies were presented in part as “Problems with Landfills for Superfund Site Remediation” at the US EPA National Superfund Technical Assistance Grant Workshop held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in February 2003. They are based on the author's experience in investigating the properties of landfill liners and the characteristics of today's landfills, relative to their ability to prevent groundwater pollution and to cause other environmental impacts. Discussed are issues related to both solid and hazardous waste landfills and approaches for improving the ability of landfills to contain wastes and monitor for leachate escape from the landfill for as long as the wastes in the landfill will be a threat. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

The active role of state laws in superfund cleanups

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) did not ignore the fifty individual states when establishing responsibility, authority, and liability for cleaning up hazardous waste sites. Although CERCLA gives EPA the ultimate authority to select a remedy for a contaminated site, the law was drafted not only to allow for state activity without EPA, but also for significant state input when EPA is involved. The relationship between a state (and its environmental laws) and EPA can help decide the remedial and financial interests of any potentially responsible party (PRP). This article discusses the relevant CERCLA provisions, recent court decisions, and resolved and unresolved issues in federal-state Superfund involvement, and recommends several common-sense strategies for PRPs when working with a state in a Superfund cleanup.     

National monument locations and remediation of World War II battle sites

In December 2008, George W. Bush established the World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument, including eight locations connected with World War II fighting. The executive proclamation designating the monument briefly described the individual sites, mentioning remaining battlefield debris. World War II battle locations in Hawaii and Alaska are currently designated for remediation under different programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Defense (DOD). The Pearl Harbor Naval Complex is a “Superfund” National Priority List site. Former military locations in the Aleutian Islands, involved in Japanese occupation and the U.S. offensive to regain control, are included in DOD's Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) remediation program. These monument sites, the regulatory frameworks of the applicable programs, and the current cleanup status are described. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Unreliability of co‐occurrence‐based sediment quality guidelines for contaminated sediment evaluations at Superfund/hazardous chemical sites

Many Superfund/hazardous chemical sites include waterbodies whose sediments contain hazardous chemicals. With the need to assess, rank, and remediate contaminated sediments at such sites, as well as in other waterways, regulators seek a simple, quantitative assessment approach that feeds easily into a decision‐making scheme. Numeric, co‐occurrence‐based “sediment quality guidelines” have emerged with the appearance of administrative simplicity. However, the very foundation of the co‐occurrence approach, based on the total concentrations of a chemical(s) in sediment, is technically invalid; its application relies on additional technically invalid presumptions. Use of technically invalid evaluation approaches renders any assessment of the significance of sediment contamination unreliable. This article reviews the technical roots and assumptions of the co‐occurrence‐based SQGs, the fundamental flaws in the rationale behind their development and application, and their misapplication for sediment quality evaluation. It also reviews concepts and approaches for the more reliable evaluation, ranking, and cleanup assessment of contaminated sediments at Superfund sites and elsewhere. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Successful UV/oxidation of VOC-contaminated groundwater

Ultraviolet light/oxidation has proven its effectiveness in destroying volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) found in groundwater during a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) field study. Under the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., and EPA monitored the performance of a system employing advanced oxidation techniques at the Lorentz Barrel & Drum (LB&D) Superfund site in San Jose, California. The firm of Ultrox International (Santa Ana, CA) demonstrated its technology for combining ultraviolet light, hydrogen peroxide and ozone to oxidize toxic organic chemicals found in water. All evaluation criteria were successfully met in the study's results. Greater than 90% of the VOCs were removed. The applicable discharge standards (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) were attained, and there were no emissions.     

On-site analytical support: A cost-effective alternative to fixed laboratory services

Two recent projects involving soils remediation at Superfund sites in southern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania exemplify the power of “real time” field analytical support in reducing time and expense during a project's remedial phase. The remediation efforts at both of these CERCLA sites were supported by ERM-FAST on-site analytical facilities which, in a “real-time” scenario, achieved all data quality objectives (DQOs), met all regulatory agency requirements, and satisfied the client's needs. Both of these sites offer illustrations of the effectiveness of field analysis for vastly differing site contaminants. The client benefited from substantial savings on analytical cost as well as the savings realized through efficient and effective process and schedule management.     

SITE Demonstration of Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated and Nonchlorinated Organic Compounds in Fractured Bedrock

A field demonstration of an enhanced in-situ bioremediation technology was conducted between March 1998 and August 1999 at the ITT Industries Night Vision (ITTNV) Division plant in Roanoke, Virginia. The bioremediation process was evaluated for its effectiveness in treating both chlorinated and nonchlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater located in fractured bedrock. Chlorinated compounds, such as trichloroethene (TCE), in fractured bedrock pose a challenging remediation problem. Not only are chlorinated compounds resistant to normal biological degradation, but the fractured bedrock presents difficulties to traditional techniques used for recovery of contaminants and for delivery of amendments or reagents for in-situ remediation. The demonstration was conducted under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program. The SITE program was established to promote the development, demonstration, and use of innovative treatment technologies for the cleanup of Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. This article presents selected results of the demonstration and focuses on understanding the data in light of the fractured bedrock formation. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

New tool for landfill location.

In the present paper a decision-making process for the potential location of new landfill areas with wide community participation and acceptance is suggested. The main scientific contribution of this work is the elaboration of an independent decision-making tool, which can be used in landfill site selection. Specifically, at a first level it acts as an intermediary between experts (i.e. engineers, technical advisors) and decision-makers (i.e. elected representatives, appointive advisors), helping decision-makers to use experts' knowledge. At a higher level, it acts as an independent processor of decision-makers judgments thereby giving a result that is in accordance with pre-chosen criteria. In this way, the local authorities can effectively participate in the decision-making process and avert the violation of possible agreements. Furthermore, the criteria (pre-selection - evaluation) and the methodology of multicriteria analysis for new landfill location are presented.     

Phytoremediation of dissolved phase organic compounds: Optimal site considerations relative to field case studies

The United States Environmental Protection Agency/Environmental Response Team (EPA/ERT) has been supporting and implementing the use of phytoremediation to remediate dissolved phase organic compounds at Superfund sites since March 1996. Since then, ERT has applied phytoremediation field plots, both pilot and full scale, to a variety of field conditions. These active sites vary considerably as to depth to groundwater, groundwater transmissivity, contaminant concentrations, contaminant hydrophobicity, climate, planting design, plant selection, planting technique, and type of monitoring. Here we compare the literature and discuss lessons learned at five Superfund sites. Current maintenance and monitoring techniques at these sites are also discussed with recommendations for the maintenance and monitoring of similar sites in the future. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Incineration treatment of arsenic-contaminated soil

An incineration test program was conducted at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Incineration Research Facility to evaluate the potential of incineration as a treatment option for contaminated soils at the Baird and McGuire Superfund site in Holbrook, Massachusetts. The purpose of these tests was to evaluate the incinerability of these soils in terms of the fate of arsenic and lead and the destruction of organic contaminants during the incineration process. The test program consisted of a series of bench-scale experiments with a muffle furnace and a series of incineration tests in a pilot-scale rotary kiln incinerator system. The study reported in this paper was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract 68–C9–0038 to Acurex Corporation. It has been subjected to the Agency's review and has been approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.     

Immobilizing a light,nonaqueous phase liquid

A new technique has been developed to immobilize organic chemicals at a Superfund site. In the course of predesign studies in preparing the Remedial Design for the Pioneer Sand Superfund site in Pensacola, Florida, a light, nonaqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) was discovered floating on the groundwater within the on-site landfill. The liquid, with a viscosity similar to SAE 20 motor oil, was made up of heavy organic chemicals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), but no pesticides or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The volatiles present included toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. Regulatory agencies expressed concern over the possibility of LNAPL migration and asked that a method of LNAPL immobilization be devised.     

Semivolatile organic decay rates in pilot-scale solid- and slurry-phase bioreactors

A variety of process byproducts and residues were reclaimed at the Brio Refining Superfund site, an abandoned jet fuel refinery located near Houston, Texas. Among the operations that took place at the site were regeneration of acrylonitrile synthesis catalysts, styrene reprocessing still bottoms to recover ethylbenzene, and the attempted reclamation of 1,2-dichloroethane from vinyl chloride process residues. Incoming process byproducts and residues were stored in unlined impoundments before reclamation, until the Texas Air Control Board had the impoundments closed under court order in 1979. After the pits were closed, two pilot-scale bioremediation demonstrations were performed on the backfilled impoundments. The results of these studies indicated that bioremediation of the organic residues and affected soils at the site was included as an acceptable treatment technology in the Record of Decision. This article compares the degradation rates achieved by the two different biological treatment processes used to treat the organic material in the impoundments.     

Thermal treatment and non-thermal technologies for remediation of manufactured gas plant sites

More than 1500 manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites exist throughout the U.S. Many are contaminated with coal tar from coal-fueled gas works which produced ‘town gas’ from the mid-1800s through the 1950s.^1,2 Virtually all old U.S. cities have such sites. Most are in downtown areas as they were installed for central distribution of manufactured gas. While a few sites are CERCLA/Superfund, most are not. However, the contaminants and methods used for remediation are similar to those used for Superfund clean-ups of coal tar contamination from wood-treating and coke oven facilities. Clean-up of sites is triggered by regulatory pressure, property transfers and re-development as well as releases to the environment — in particular, via groundwater migration. Due to utility de-regulation, site clean-ups may also be triggered by sale of a utility or of a specific utility site to other utilities. Utilities have used two approaches in dealing with their MGP sites. The first is ‘do nothing and hope for the best’. History suggests that, sooner or later, these sites become a bigger problem via a release, citizen lawsuit or regulatory/public service commission intervention. The second, far better approach is to define the problem now and make plans for waste treatment or immobilization. This paper describes recent experience with a high capacity/low cost thermal desorption process for this waste and reviews non-thermal technology, such as bio-treatment, capping, recycling, and dig and haul. Cost data is provided for all technologies, and a case study for thermal treatment is also presented.