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.     

Getting remedial action plans approved by state agencies

Thousands of contaminated sites around the country never get caught in the sticky web of Superfund. Instead, they are handled by state environmental agencies under state environmental laws and rules. Generally speaking, state environmental programs appear to function much more efficiently than Superfund. But even though they are easier to work with than Superfund, state contamination cleanup programs can still be daunting. This article offers some points and suggestions for making the state process work smoothly and efficiently.     

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.     

Defining a successful superfund clean-up: A community representative's perspective

The successful use of the Superfund program involves developing partnerships with all of the stakeholders early in the process. Citizens living near Superfund sites are the primary stakeholders, falling victim to many health risks and economic costs. When equipped with technical advisors, citizens can play a primary role in the remediation decisions being made at hazardous waste sites. This article illustrates the important role and impact of concerned citizens living near the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Superfund site in Saratoga Springs, New York. The Superfund program was used successfully at this site in a number of ways, mainly in that it provided technical advisors through a technical assistance grant (TAG) for the citizens, which resulted in a thorough and conclusive remedial investigation.     

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.     

Remediation and future land use: Incorporating reuse considerations into Superfund activities

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is placing increased emphasis on the selection and implementation of remedies that accommodate the reasonably anticipated future use of contaminated land. These remedies result in the long‐term protection of human health and the environment. Postconstruction reuse of the land can significantly benefit communities in other ways as well. The launching of the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative in 1999 and the Return to Use Initiative in 2004 reflects an evolution in the US EPA's understanding of what actions can be taken to support the reuse of Superfund sites from discovery through long‐term stewardship. Through these initiatives, the US EPA has increased its understanding of site reuse and continues to explore and implement reuse assessment, reuse planning, and other tools effective in integrating reuse considerations with response activities throughout the remedial process. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Using community relations to reduce costs during remediation projects

Almost everyone who has been involved in a site remediation project has seen schedules slip and costs escalate due to political pressure from the public or the press. While focusing on remediation technologies and containment techniques to control costs, many organizations have neglected a major cost driver—public opinion. This article examines community relations from the perspective of an organization trying to control costs during a site remediation project. It details the strong correlation between the cost of a site cleanup and the level of public dissatisfaction and provides an organization with specific strategies on how to use proven communications techniques to lower costs. Examination of several case studies is provided, including a study involving a site in which community representatives actively worked to reduce project costs. It is clear that any responsible cleanup must be protective of public health and the environment. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that wise allocation of available resources has a profound effect on the program's ability to ensure public and environmental safety. In many cases, it has been proven that some costly cleanups—for example, involving excavation—sometimes actually increase risk by creating an exposure pathway where none existed before. In turn, such cleanups waste resources that are needed elsewhere. The challenge in dealing with this complicated issue is to help stakeholders understand the true ramifications of the choices that are faced at each site. If these stakeholders feel uninformed, powerless, or excluded from the process, it is likely that they will be unable to enter a productive discussion. The community relations programs outlined in documents such as a Superfund guidance can be helpful in familiarizing the community with site-related issues and with gathering public input. These activities act as a baseline for the programs discussed in this article. However, existing programs are not focused on providing a strategic advantage in reaching cleanup solutions and balancing health and environmental considerations with economic considerations.     

Evaluation of a vertical frozen soil barrier at oak ridge national laboratory

Arctic Foundations, Inc. (AFI), of Anchorage, Alaska, has developed a freeze barrier system designed to hydraulically isolate a contaminant source area. The system can be used for long‐term or temporary containment of groundwater until appropriate remediation techniques can be applied. The technology was evaluated under the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program at the United States Department of Energy's (DOE's) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. For the demonstration, an array of freeze pipes called “thermoprobes” was installed to a depth of 30 feet below ground surface around a former waste collection pond and keyed into bedrock. The system was used to establish an impermeable frozen soil barrier to hydraulically isolate the pond. Demonstration personnel collected independent data to evaluate the technology's performance. A variety of evaluation tools were used—including a groundwater dye tracing investigation, groundwater elevation measurements, and subsurface soil temperature data—to determine the effectiveness of the freeze barrier system in preventing horizontal groundwater flow beyond the limits of the frozen soil barrier. Data collected during the demonstration provided evidence that the frozen soil barrier was effective in hydraulically isolating the pond.     

Low waste feed concentrations and destruction removal efficiency

In the early 1980s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded research on destruction and removal efficiencies (DREs) at eight hazardous waste incinerators. This research appeared to show that DREs of 99.99% could not be achieved at low waste feed principal hazardous organic constituent (POHC) concentrations. During the mid 1980s and 1990s however, testing at Superfund sites has indicated that DREs of 99.9999% or greater can be achieved at low waste feed POHC concentrations. This paper will summarize testing which includes 32 test runs at five Superfund sites and the EPA's incineration research facility. The tests include POHC concentrations from 6552 parts per million down to 28 parts per million at typical DREs of 6–9 s or greater.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Proven methods for managing public perception of cleanups

Negative public perceptions can dramatically increase site remediation costs or even bring projects to a grinding halt. Public opposition and ensuing political pressure are two damaging, but often ignored, obstacles that confront remediation managers. This article discusses these and other public management issues, recommending tactics proven for maintaining positive working relationships with a site's human neighbors, the media (electronic and print), government officials, regulatory agencies, and other concerned groups to allow site cleanup to proceed without intervention, opposition, or unnecessary delay. It illustrates its warnings about public and political hostility with case histories from Superfund, RCRA, and other cleanup sites, recounting how corporate management won the public's confidence and kept their projects on time and within budget.     

The use of natural processes for the control of chromium migration

Environmental contamination with ionic chromium has been identified as a problem at numerous Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action sites. In many cases, contamination of groundwater to levels above existing standards or criteria may be a potential problem both for direct consumption of groundwater and for transport of mobile forms of chromium to areas such as basements where it can becontacted. In the environment, chromium occurs in two forms: trivalent and hexavalent. The trivalent form is generally immobile and nontoxic; hexavalent chromium is generally mobile and toxic. This article first presents the extent of the chromium problem, reviews the environmental chemistry literature on chromium, and reviews existing treatment technology for chromium immobilization in the nontoxic trivalent state. Finally, we present a case study where immobilization of chromium occurred through natural processes allowing a modified no-action scenario for site remediation.     

Protecting environmental audits and reports: Balancing self-examination and self-protection

Recently, some companies have begun making environmental reports and internal audits public. Other companies have chosen not to do so. The desire to engage in a critical and thorough self-examination is often thwarted by the fear that audits and other reports may be used against a company in later litigation or administrative proceedings. However, there are some legal, regulatory, and procedural safeguards that can protect a company that chooses to make reports and audits public. This article examines these safeguards, their strengths and weaknesses, and their role in balancing self-examination and self-protection.     

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.     

A review of geosynthetic liner system technology

This paper presents a general review of geosynthetic liner systems design considerations. The paper emphasizes the fundamental differences between a liner and a liner system, discusses the types of liner systems that are effective in landfill applications, and discusses how the components of a liner system may vary depending on the type of application, regulatory requirements, site hydrogeologic and climatic conditions, and the availability of materials. Regarding regulatory considerations, the paper discusses how liner systems must be selected and designed in conformance with regulatory performance standards in order to ensure long-term protection of the environment, and notes that many American state regulations for municipal waste landfills include minimum design guidelines that may be inadequate to meet the state's performance standards. The two aspects of chemical compatibility—retention and resistance to chemical attack—are discussed, and a generalized approach to designing geosynthetic liner systems is presented. The paper concludes with a discussion on future needs of the discipline and the industry.     

Arsenic and thallium data in environmental samples: Fact or fiction?

Matrix effects may increasingly lead to erroneous environmental decisions as regulatory limits or risk‐based concentrations of concern for trace metals move lower toward the limits of analytical detection. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Technical Standards Alert estimated that environmental data reported using inductively coupled plasma spectrometry (ICP‐AES) has a false‐positive rate for thallium of 99.9 percent and for arsenic of 25 to 50 percent. Although this does not seem to be widely known in the environmental community, using three case studies, this article presents data in environmental samples that demonstrate severe matrix effects on the accuracy of arsenic and thallium results. Case Study 1 involves soil results with concentrations that approached or exceeded the applicable regulatory soil cleanup objectives of 13 mg/kg for arsenic and 2 mg/kg for thallium. Reanalysis using ICP coupled with a mass spectrometer (ICP‐MS) confirmed all thallium results were false positives and all arsenic results were biased high, concluding no action was required for soil remediation. Case Study 2 involves groundwater results for thallium at a Superfund site, where thallium was detected in groundwater up to 21.6 μ g/L using ICP‐AES. Reanalysis by ICP‐MS reported thallium as nondetect below the applicable regulatory level in all samples. ICP‐MS is usually a more definitive and accurate method of analysis compared to ICP‐AES; however, this is not always the case, as we demonstrate in Case Study 3, using data from groundwater samples at an industrial site. Through a weight‐of‐evidence approach, it is demonstrated that although method quality control results were acceptable, interferences in some groundwater samples caused biased high results for arsenic using ICP‐MS, which were significantly lower when reanalyzed using hydride generation atomic fluorescence spectrometry. Causes of these interference effects and conclusions from the three case studies to obtain accurate metal data for site assessment, risk characterization, and remedy selection are discussed. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.