SSH 8341 Project and Field Experience Don Legg/ Carl Edlund

1. SSH 8341Project and Field ExperienceDon Legg/ Carl Edlund Part II Class 10 April 3, 2000 Carl Edlund “edlund.carl@epa.gov”; 214-665-8124

2. KEY POINTS: PRIOR CLASS • ORIGINS: • Basis for Superfund • ROLE OF GOVERNMENT: • CERCLA basics • Multiple interests affect decisions at all levels • REGULATORY PROCESS: • Superfund site case studies provide a window on environmental the decision-making process

3. SUPERFUNDPROCESS:CERCLA SCREEN STUDY RI/FS STANDARD SETTING ROD, RD EXECUTION RA

4. SUPERFUNDCASE STUDIES ‘80 ‘82 ‘84 ‘86 ‘88 ‘90 ‘92 ‘94 ‘96 ‘98 ‘00 SITES SIKES FRENCH N. ZINC S. SHIP AG. ST. HEN’TA RI/FS RA R RI/FS RA R R/S R RA R R R CERCLA SARA REFORM

5. CITIZENS: Near neighbor Far Neighbor Innocent Landowner MONEY SOURCES Mortgage Lenders Insurers MEDIA Health, compensation Stigma, property value Lost investment Liability, recovery Run away- no actuarial info Circulation, market share CONFLICTING INTERESTS AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITESPARTYTYPICAL INTEREST

6. OTHER AGENCIES Natural Resource Trustees Health Agencies State Environmental Agency PRP Agencies Natural resource damages, their mission Funding for health programs State verses federal authority Own priorities and systems CONFLICTING INTERESTS AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITESPARTYTYPICAL INTEREST

7. SPECIAL INTERESTS Toxic Tort Attorneys Technical experts Eco- Groups Unions Chamber of Commerce Vendors $$ , justice, gain $$, reputation, ‘cause’ The ‘Cause’ Labor contract Jobs, property values $$, Their Solution CONFLICTING INTERESTS AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITESPARTYTYPICAL INTEREST

8. ELECTED REPS Local State Federal JUDICIAL District Attorney Judge Blame?, re-election Avoidance Re-election, platform Re-election [different party] Unique Solution CONFLICTING INTERESTS AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITESPARTYTYPICAL INTEREST

9. EPA TEAM HQ Policy Staff HQ Attorneys Team Attorney Team Scientists Management DOJ New ‘Pilots’ for ideas ‘Supreme’ intent Big ‘win’ Fun = research Execute the law …elected Reps OK? Protect govt’s broader interest CONFLICTING INTERESTS AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITESPARTYTYPICAL INTEREST

10. PRP ORG.S Lead RP Small RP In-house Council Out-house Council Plant manager Corporate philosophy- fight, flight, or site Cash out, Corporate name, other cases ‘Supreme’ opportunities Community acceptance CONFLICTING INTERESTS AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITESPARTYTYPICAL INTEREST

11. ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS REGULATORY PROCESS P R O B L E M S O L V E D ? S T U D Y S T D E X E C REVIEW

12. UST/LUST COST OBJECTIVITY SLOW PROGRESS TOXICS [BHOPAL] SARA I SARA II: $ 8.6 BILLION PRP ROLES CRITERIA TAGS ATSDR EPA: HQ TO RO’S SARA III SUPERFUND 1986:PROBLEMSSOLUTIONS

13. SUPERFUNDPROCESS:SARA SCREEN PRP RI/FS ROD, RD PRP RA

14. H.H. & E. COST/EFF REMEDY SELECTION TREE: CERCLA

15. H.H. & E PERMANENT TREAT MEP ARARS ONSITE + COST INNOVATE REDUCE M/T/V S & L EFFECT COMMUNITY STATE REMEDY SELECTION TREE: SARA

16. FRENCH LTD. CASE STUDY

17. SUPERFUND POST SARA [1993] • SUCCESSES: • PRP Involvement UP! • 1985 30% vs 70% • 1993 70% vs 30% • Human Health Risk Assessment Systems developed • Treatment Technologies UP! • Innovative Technologies [Sometimes] Effective

18. SOIL CLEAN UP LEVELSSUPERFUND WOOD-TREATER SITES1986 TO 1992 10+3 10+2 INDUSTRIAL 10+1 PPM of CARCINOGENIC PAH’S 10 0 RESIDENTIAL 10-1 10-2 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 LIFETIME EXCESS CANCER RISK

19. Integrated Environmental Uptake Bio-kinetic Model [‘IEUBK’] for Lead 500 ppm Pb 1,000 ppm Pb TARGET: < 5% CHILDREN > 10 ug/dL PROBABILITY DENSITY f (blood Pb) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 BLOOD LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (ug/dL)

20. SUPERFUND POST SARA [1993]

21. SUPERFUND POST SARA [1993] • INNOVATION = SUCCESS [SOMETIMES]: • Insitu-biotreatment can work but is slower and not necessarily cheaper than incineration • Soil Washing & S.V.E. can work [if soils are cooperative] • Vitrification didn’t work for us • Chemical Dechlorination: flubber and foam

22. SUPERFUND NPL. CERCLIS BROWNFIELD, OTHER SITES

23. SUPERFUND POST SARA [1993] • BUT…… PROBLEMS ABOUNDED: • SLUGGISH: • 4.8 YRS ‘STUDY’ • 3.0 YRS ‘STANDARD SETTING’ • 3.0 YEARS EXECUTION • HEAVY HANDED ENFORCEMENT AGAINST ‘GRANNIES’ • STIGMA ON PROPERTIES • COMMUNITY DISTRUST: • ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE • LACK OF ACCESS TO GOVT /ALL LEVELS

24. SUPERFUND REFORM: POST 1993 • REPUBLICAN CONGRESS: • S/F = 6,000 STAFF/ 1200 SITES/ 6 DELETIONS …. • MANY ‘PROBLEMS’ DUE TO PRIOR FIXES [!]: • SARA Process ……... Sluggishness • CERCLA’s joint/several liability …...stigma, • Governmentese ………. excesses in enforcement and lack of trust by communities [our customers!]

25. SLUGGISHNESS STIGMA HEAVY-HANDED ENF. COMMUNITY DISTRUST ADMIN. REFORMS DUMP INVENTORIES BROWNFIELDS DEMINIMIS AND DEMICROMAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUPS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE E.O. SUPERFUND REFORM: POST 1993PROBLEMSSOLUTIONS

26. SUPERFUND REFORM: POST 1993 • 22 ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS • ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS” • Deminimus and Demicromas settlements, • Comfort Letters • ACCELERATION OF PROCESS: • Goal is Construction Completion not Record of Decision • Integrated Schedules • Team approach

27. SUPERFUND REFORM: POST 1993 • PROBLEM: COMMUNITY DISTRUST • Environmental Justice • Institutional Racism • Government geek [e.g. Ghostbusters] • SOLUTIONS [still under construction]: • Just who are you and what do you need from me? • Real dialogue • Meaningful Empowerment

28. NATIONAL ZINC CASE STUDY

29. SUPERFUND SITE TRENDSEPA REGION 6 40 DUMPS 30 FED. FAC. # OF NEW SITES 20 BANKRUPT 10 W/ PEOPLE 1980 - 1986 1987 - 1993 1994 - 1999