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.     

A risk-based approach to how clean is clean

Clearly defined remedial action objectives are a key factor in successful remediation programs. Chemical-specific cleanup criteria are critical components of remedial action objectives. A common risk-based approach can be applied for developing cleanup criteria for remediations under CERCLA, RCRA, and TSCA. This approach involves four steps: identify regulatory requirements; identify chemical-specific cleanup guidelines from previous cleanups; evaluate site-specific risk considering mitigating factors for a given site; select the final cleanup criteria based on information from the first three steps. To describe this approach, this paper presents a case study on a PCB cleanup conducted under TSCA. An objective risk-based approach was used to capitalize on the flexibility built into EPA's PCB cleanup guidelines. EPA granted an exemption to the stated policy on the basis of competing risk factors using a comparative risk-assessment approach. Similarly, risk assessment can be used to take advantage of regulatory flexibility in the selection of applicable or appropriate and relevant requirements (ARARs) under CERCLA, or in the selection of media protection standards under RCRA.     

Risk assessment and accepted regulatory cleanup levels

The determination of cleanup levels at a CERCLA or RCRA site is often the single most important decision made by risk managers. This decision can have a major impact on the costs and time required for remediation, as well as on the selection of remedial technologies. The object of this article is to provide a critical review of the methods used by regulatory agencies and the regulated community to calculate chemical-specific cleanup goals for inactive hazardous waste sites, focusing on those cleanup goals that are designed to protect human health from the effects of chemicals. In addition to this analysis of historical methods that have been used, this article discusses some innovative solutions to the problem of calculating cleanup levels and presents an analysis of controversial topics related to cleanup levels currently under debate by regulatory agencies, industry, environmentalists, and legislative bodies.     

Alternatives to incineration in remediation of soil and sediments assessed

Contamination of soil and sediment by pollutants represents a major environmental challenge. Remediation of soil during the original Superfund years consisted primarily of dig and haul, capping, or containment. The 1986 amendments to CERCLA—SARA—provided the incentive for treatment and permanent remedies during site remediation. Thermal treatment, which routinely achieves the low cleanup criteria required by RCRA land-ban regulations, became one of the major technologies used for cleanup under the concept of ARAR. As the remediation industry matured and recognized specific market niches in soil remediation, a number of new technologies emerged. Thermal desorption, bioremediation, soil vapor extraction, soil washing, and soil extraction are being used on sites at which the technology offers advantages over incineration. In addition, a continuing stream of emerging technologies is being presented that requires careful evaluation relative to existing cleanup methods. Each of these technologies offers a range of options for achieving appropriate cleanup criteria, application to different soil matrices, cost, time of remediation, and public acceptability. Balancing cleanup criteria defined by regulation or risk assessment with technology cost and capability affords the opportunity to solve these problems with appropriate balance of cost and protection of human health and the environment.     

Sensitivity analysis for setting soil cleanup standards

In recent years, many states have sought to set soil standards for hazardous waste sites. For example, Michigan and Oregon have had soil standards for several years, and within the last three years Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas have derived soil standards; while Illinois and several other states are in the process of developing soil standards. In general, soil cleanup standards are set to protect against leaching to groundwater and direct contact with soil. This article reviews several agencies' protocols and presents a sensitivity analysis of parameters used to establish these soil cleanup standards. Major issues examined in this article include land use (residential versus commercial/industrial) and exposure parameters used for deriving soil cleanup standards for direct contact. Soil cleanup standards are developed considering exposure routes such as ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of vapors, and fugitive dust. Other factors such as chemical/physical properties are also considered. For example, many states use Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) or EPA Method 1312 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) to derive soil standards protective of leaching to groundwater. The results indicate that factors such as leaching and certain exposure assumptions play a key role in determining soil cleanup standards. Exposure pathways were examined by performing a sensitivity analysis using a generic equation to consider exposure from ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of soil in deriving soil cleanup standards. The sensitivity analysis indicates that selection of exposure parameters such as toxicity values and soil-to-skin adherence factors contribute more substantially than others. These two factors are also among those values with the greatest uncertainty. Selection of exposure pathways is also important for the derivation of soil cleanup standards. For example, inhalation is the most significant exposure pathway for volatile organic compounds such as toluene, yet many states do not evaluate this exposure route. These findings are based on the mathematical models used by the agencies, and no judgments are made on the validity of the models. The results of this analysis can help focus attention on the most sensitive parameters as federal government reforms environment policies (i.e., CERCLA and RCRA) and the development of national soil cleanup standards is debated.     

Translating a remediation technology into the required air,water, and rcra permits

Because remediation techniques and technologies are themselves generally viewed as contaminant source by hazardous waste laws and regulations, permits are required to use them, even if it is only to contain or remove a site's principal contaminants. Referring to such major environmental laws as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, RCRA, TSCA, and CERCLA, this article outlines the steps needed to translate cleanup projects into the appropriate permits.     

Approaches for assessing hazards and risks to workers and the public from contaminated land

Many public agencies and private entities are faced with assessing the risks to humans from contamination on their lands. The United States Department of Energy (US DOE) and Department of Defense are responsible for large holdings of contaminated land and face a long‐term and costly challenge to assure sustainable protectiveness. With increasing interest in the conversion of brownfields to productive uses, many former industrial properties must also be assessed to determine compatible future land uses. In the United States, many cleanup plans or actions are based on the Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act, which provides important but incomplete coverage of these issues, although many applications have tried to involve stakeholders at multiple steps. Where there is the potential for exposure to workers, the public, and the environment from either cleanup or leaving residual contamination in place, there is a need for a more comprehensive approach to evaluate and balance the present and future risk(s) from existing contamination, from remediation actions, as well as from postremediation residual contamination. This article focuses on the US DOE, the agency with the largest hazardous waste remediation task in the world. Presented is a framework extending from preliminary assessment, risk assessment and balancing, epidemiology, monitoring, communication, and stakeholder involvement useful for assessing risk to workers and site neighbors. Provided are examples of those who eat fish, meat, or fruit from contaminated habitats. The US DOE's contaminated sites are unique in a number of ways: (1) huge physical footprint size, (2) types of waste (mixed radiation/chemical), and (3) quantities of waste. Proposed future land uses provide goals for remediation, but since some contamination is of a type or magnitude that cannot be cleaned up with existing technology, this in turn constrains future land use options, requiring an iterative approach. The risk approaches must fit a range of future land uses and end‐states from leave‐in‐place to complete cleanup. This will include not only traditional risk methodologies, but also the assessment and surveillance necessary for stewards for long‐term monitoring of risk from historic and future exposure to maintain sustainable protectiveness. Because of the distinctiveness of DOE sites, application of the methodologies developed here to other waste site situations requires site‐specific evaluation © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Risk Assessment in Remediation: Accurately Accounting for Uncertainty

Cleanup levels at hazardous waste sites are typically developed based at least in pan on either generic or site-specific risk assessments. Risk assessment in its purest form should be a measure of the potential for a site to cause adverse effects and therefore should be used as the basis for cleanup. However, the process of risk assessment continues to be subject to problems, primarily related to inherent uncertainties in the exposure parameters and toxicity criteria that are the building blocks of the risk assessment. Criticism of risk assessments and risk-based decisions range from comments that the process inadequately protects human health to comments that the process is overly protective, and examples of both ends of the spectrum are readily available. Site remediation professionals should be aware of the issues related to uncertainty and understand the potential problems in order to ensure appropriate and effective site cleanup. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Influences on RCRA corrective action costs for nonfederal facilities

Thousands of known hazardous waste sites across the country require remediation, with thousands more yet to be discovered, at estimated cleanup costs of billions of dollars over the next few decades. With this enormous financial burden placed on all members of society through increased prices, taxes, and lost investment opportunities, policy makers face the difficult prospect of defining cleanup standards that meet the goals of protecting human health and the environment and achieving remediation in the most cost-effective manner. Using a statistical methodology to investigate factors influencing the cost of RCRA corrective action, this article examines site characteristics that significantly affect cleanup costs and explains differences in costs among EPA's four proposed Subpart S corrective action options.     

Institutional controls for future land use at active installation restoration program (IRP) sites

One of the strategies now in vogue in hazardous waste cleanup is basing remedial strategies on future land use. The initial thrust of CERCLA for permanent and complete remedies has given way, pushed by concepts like “brownfields” and base closure and reuse, to strategies often based on “institutional controls” that attempt to stabilize future land uses at a site based on residual risk. The heart of this concept is that instead of removing all wastes from a site, some wastes can safely remain so long as in the future the site is not used in such a way that the residual contamination poses an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. “Institutional controls” is a term for land use management strategies that do not rely on engineering approaches to reduce risk, but rather seek to ensure that the site is not used in an inappropriate way in the future. This article cautions that such a strategy has inherent residual risks that must be understood by those involved in implementing hazardous waste cleanups and those responsible for future uses of contaminated property. Simply put, institutional controls are only as good as the processes that are in place to ensure they are respected in the future. This presents particular problems for active duty installations because most of the protections commonly available to private sector sites are not useful at active installations. This article discusses an initiative by the Air Combat Command to develop a handbook on instituting and maintaining land restrictions. It will also discuss that effort in light of the April 21 EPA Region IV guidance on assuring Land Use Controls at Federal Facilities. This article is based on a paper and presentations given at the 1998 ACC Environmental Training Symposium.     

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.     

Treatment of remediation wastes in RCRA corrective action management units

This article explains new EPA regulations that provide for use of corrective action management units (CAMUs) and temporary units (TUs) as cost-effective techniques for remediating hazardous wastes at facilities undergoing RCRA corrective action and at CERCLA remediation sites. The author outlines EPA criteria for approving the use of CAMUs, discusses the benefits and limitations of using them, and recommends possible ways to improve on the CAMU concept.     

Issues in monitoring hazardous chemicals in stormwater runoff/discharges from superfund and other hazardous chemical sites

Deficiencies in design and execution render stormwater‐runoff monitoring programs for many hazardous chemical sites inadequate for assessing the potential environmental quality and public health impacts of chemicals in the runoff. Two pervasive problems are the use of analytical methods that are inadequate for measuring certain hazardous chemicals at potentially hazardous concentrations, and the application of “criteria/standards” that are inappropriate for evaluating the environmental/public health impacts of chemicals. These concerns are most notable for carcinogens and chemicals that bioaccumulate in edible aquatic organisms, including arsenic, chromium, beryllium, mercury, dioxins, organochlorine pesticides (such as DDT), and polychlorinated biphenyls; unrecognized pollutants; and nanomaterials. In order to appropriately evaluate whether the runoff/discharge from a hazardous chemical site is a threat to human health, the analytical methods must be sufficiently sensitive in critical concentration ranges; sampling regimens need to be sufficiently rigorous to provide reliable characterization of the content of the runoff, receiving water, and, for bioaccumulatable chemicals, levels in edible organisms in receiving water. Proper sampling and analysis will then provide data to enable the appropriate criteria/standards to be applied. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Systematically selecting an alternative to remediate soil contaminating groundwater

Contaminated soil is a continuing source of ground water contamination at some hazardous waste sites. Even if that soil does not pose a threat to human health or the environment, soil remediation may benefit ground-water cleanup in terms of time, money, or protectiveness. A method has been developed to provide a systematic manner to select a soil cleanup alternative. Using commercially available Windows-based software, the method consists of the development of a decision tree whose chance nodes are the restoration time frame probability distributions. Uncertainty associated with site data is quantitatively evaluated using Monte Carlo analysis to develop the probability distributions. The decision tree selects the alternative with the lowest cost. Data from an actual remedial investigation/feasibility study demonstrate the ease and practicality of the selection method.     

Extricating Membership as a PRP at Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites

Corporations often become potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at hazardous waste sites because of their past transportation or disposal of hazardous substances at such sites. Determining a PRP's potential liability for the assessment and cleanup of hazardous waste sites is a challenging effort and often results in disputes among other PRPs regarding appropriate allocation of response action costs to each party. Further, public companies have an obligation to report probable and reasonably estimable costs under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) for environmental liabilities at their current or prior hazardous waste sites. The first step in such an evaluation is to determine whether or not a PRP can extricate themselves from any association with the subject site or, alternatively, demonstrate de minimis status. This article describes the methods by which PRPs can extricate themselves from liability associated with response action costs at contaminated sites, including: evaluating a PRP's prior settlements or indemnifications with other PRPs; identifying insurance coverage or other financial assurance instruments for the disposal facility; and examining applicable statutes of limitations against when a PRP received notification from the regulatory agency. The article also presents a case study discussing how a PRP with a portfolio of 72 hazardous waste disposal sites was able to extricate itself from the majority of these sites, resulting in only four sites where the PRP was determined to be a PRP and where an associated allocable share was assigned. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

A dynamic methodology for estimating cleanup efforts for mercury in soil at gas utility gate stations

This article provides an overview of a dynamic methodology leading to the estimation of the level of mercury concentration in soil and soil cleanup volumes associated with a large number of gate stations suspected of having mercury in their soil. The methodology uses a unique screening approach that has been developed for relating measurements of volatile mercury near the surface to mercury concentration in the upper soil subsurface (about twelve inches deep). The screening approach was used in an effort to reduce the number of sites that are subject to extensive multimedia environmental sampling and analysis. The approach helps to focus on a small number of sites that are suspected of having the highest mercury concentration in soil, perform multimedia environmental sampling at these sites, use the field data to perform risk assessment, and determine the cleanup action levels and the volume of hot spots soil to be cleaned at these sites. The information obtained for the most contaminated sites is used to determine, if required, the level of cleanup for less contaminated sites.     

Management of hazardous waste in Thailand: present situation and future prospects

 This paper deals with the present scenario of hazardous waste management practices in Thailand, and gives some insights into future prospects. Industrialization in Thailand has systematically increased the generation of hazardous waste. The total hazardous waste generated in 2001 was 1.65 million tons. It is estimated that over 300 million kg/year of hazardous waste is generated from nonindustrial, community sources (e.g., batteries, fluorescent lamps, cleansing chemicals, pesticides). No special facilities are available for handling these wastes. There are neither well-established systems for separation, storage, collection, and transportation, nor the effective enforcement of regulations related to hazardous wastes management generated from industrial or nonindustrial sectors. Therefore, because of a lack of treatment and disposal facilities, these wastes find their way into municipal wastewaters, public landfills, nearby dump sites, or waterways, raising serious environmental concern. Furthermore, Thailand does not have an integrated regulatory framework regarding the monitoring and management of hazardous materials and wastes. In addition to the absence of a national definition of hazardous wastes, limited funding has caused significant impediments to the effective management of hazardous waste. Thus, current waste management practices in Thailand present significant potential hazards to humans and the environment. The challenging issues of hazardous waste management in Thailand are not only related to a scarcity of financial resources (required for treatment and disposal facilities), but also to the fact that there has been no development of appropriate technology following the principles of waste minimization and sustainable development. A holistic approach to achieving effective hazardous waste management that integrates the efforts of all sectors, government, private, and community, is needed for the betterment of human health and the environment. Received: February 26, 2001 / Accepted: October 11, 2002     

Radiological risks and cleanup costs: A remediation case study

Potential health risks and cleanup costs are primary factors for measuring the effectiveness of a remediation project concerning a site contaminated with residual radioactive materials. Demanding cleanup of a contaminated site to its original condition, while eliminating any health risks after cleanup, can require prohibitive costs. However, by setting practical remediation objectives and by performing realistic but conservative risk assessments, health risks can be acceptable and cleanup costs can be reasonable. This article uses the South-Middle and Southeast Vaults Decontamination and Demolition Project at Argonne National Laboratory to demonstrate how negligible health risks can result after cleanup with minimal cleanup costs. Substantial cost savings of approximately $2 million was realized by implementing in-place decontamination and demolition (D&D) on the basis of acceptable risk, instead of requiring cleanup of the site to its original condition. By using the RESRAD computer program as a modeling tool, we show the maximum projected radiation dose (0.1 mrem per year) and the potential lifetime cancer risk (on the order of 10⁶) to an individual from exposure to the residual radioactivities are negligibly small. In addition to aiding in the selection of a preferred remediation alternative, results of the RESRAD modeling were also used to guide the implementation of the selected alternative to reduce exposures from the dominant pathway and to ensure that exposures from all pathways would be as low as reasonably achievable.     

Yardsticks to Integrate Risk Assessment,Risk Management,and Groundwater Remediation

Remediation of contaminated sites has focused largely on restoration of groundwater aquifers. Often the stated remedial goal is to achieve conditions allowing unrestricted use and unrestricted exposure. Such total groundwater cleanup has occurred at some sites, but is the exception rather than the rule. At the same time, significant effort occurs to perform risk assessments for potential exposure to contaminants in groundwater at sites, both before and after remediation. The logical synergy between risk assessment and remediation is for risk management to seek opportunities for optimal use of groundwater based upon realistic expectations of cleanup technologies and the relevant acceptable residual (postremediation) levels of contaminants. This article explores an approach to improve this synergistic relationship between risk assessment, risk management, and remediation for groundwater cleanups. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Team approaches to the development of innovative technologies and processes to facilitate remediation

The enactment of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) created a complex liability scheme for owners, operators and prospective purchasers of contaminated properties, particularly brownfields. As the program developed, liability issues related to contiguous property, prospective purchasers, and no further action determinations became barriers to brownfield property redevelopment. The national effort on the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfield sites took on new emphasis with the passing of the federal “Small Business Liability Protection and Brownfields Revitalization Act” in January 2002. This new law provides liability clarifications as well as funding to facilitate the cleanup of brownfield sites. President Bush stated in his 2003 State of the Union address, “In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command‐and‐control regulations, but through technology and innovation.” The subject of this article is the Interstate Technology Regulatory Commission's Brownfield team, its current initiative, goals, and areas of special focus. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.