Saving Superfund

1
Saving Superfund

• Proposed changes to the Superfund process based
  on the relative successes and problems of Tar
  Creek and other Superfund sites

2
Research Objectives

• Review the process for site clean ups established
  by CERCLA
• Analyze the actions taken at Tar Creek and other
  Superfund sites for successes and problems
• Recommend implementation of additional procedures

3
Methods

• Researched Tar Creek Superfund Site
• Gathered information on CERCLA guidelines and
  procedures
• Researched other Superfund Sites that have been
  successfully treated and deleted from the NPL

4
Background Information

• The Mining of the Tar Creek Area

5
Tar Creek Background Information

• Part of the Tri-State Mining District
• Kansas, Missouri
• All Superfund Sites
• Lead, Zinc, and Cadmium

6
Effects of Mining

• Open shafts
• Underground caverns
• Allowed to fill with water
• Minerals and metals leached from rock
• Chat and tailings
• left in piles
• left in floatation pools

7
Effects of Mining

• Water became contaminated
• Reddish color noticed
• Chat removed from mining site and used
• Pavement
• Playground surfaces
• Parking lots
• Residential Driveways

8
EPA DEQ Response
9
Timeline of Events OU1

• 1983 - EPA names Tar Creek Superfund Site to
  National Priorities List.
• 1984 - EPA begins work on OU1
• Address surface water contamination from
  discharge of mine water and threat of
  contamination to Roubidoux Aquifer from opened
  abandoned wells.
• 1984-1986 - Plugged 83 abandoned wells, built
  dikes, divert surface water around mines and
  collapsed mine shafts.

10
Timeline of Events OU2

• 1995 - IHS reports high blood lead levels in
  Indian children
• 35 had elevated levels
• Countywide testing shows gt30 had elevated levels
• EPA finds tailings in residential properties
• 1995-2003 - Soil samples collected, remediation
  on properties carried out
• 100 million on over 2,000 locations
• Reduced blood levels result

11
Timeline of Events OU3

• 1989-1999 - Quapaw Tribe requests EPA investigate
  the abandoned Eagle Picher Industries mining lab.
• 120 deteriorating containers of lead recovery
  chemicals found
• Containers disposed of
• Cost 55,000

12
Timeline of Events OU4

• Recent - EPA and US Department of Justice begin
  remedial investigation and feasibility study
  (2000)
• With Department of Interior, Blue Ter, and Gold
  Fields
• 1st action to identify nature and extent of
  contamination and evaluate options for clean up

13
Overview of the Superfund Process
14
The Superfund Process
Hazard Ranking NPL
Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study
Preliminary Assessment / Site Inspection
Site Discovery
Select Remedy
Remedial Design
Remedial Action
Operation Maintenance
NPL Deletion
15
The Superfund Process

• Enforcement and Public Participation occur
  throughout the process
• Removal and Remedial Action occur throughout
  process as necessary
• Removal action removing substances, excavating
  contaminated soil, installing security measures,
  providing alternate drinking water
• Remedial action study, design, constructing long
  term actions for permanent remedy. Include
  constructing underground walls to control
  groundwater movement, incinerating waste,
  applying bioremediation.

16
General Observations

• Superfund process is not rigid
• Allows for flexibility for multiple problems
• Allows for some important aspects to be overlooked

17
Successful Programs Implemented at Tar Creek
18
Community Education Program

• EPA/DEQ began campaign to inform residents of
  hazards
• Hand Washing
• No swimming and or playing in creek
• No drinking from wells/natural sources until
  water supply was tested
• Brought in alternate water supply for testing
  period (Removal Action)

19
Community Education Program

• Effects
• Blood lead levels decreased
• Potentially hazardous activities decreased or
  stopped, lowering risk of exposure
• Problems
• Started late into the process

20
Suggestion

• A Community Education Program should be one of
  the firsts steps of a Superfund Process
• Community has a right to be informed of what is
  going on, and educated in how to minimize effect,
  as soon as potential problems are identified

21
Chat Removal

• Chat coverings were removed and replaced
• Chat piles shrank as chat was sold for use in
  cement and concrete
• Effects
• Reduced Blood Lead Levels
• Removing chat will improve groundwater quality
• Cannot be used by people for recreation, and wind
  will not lead to further contamination

22
Chat Removal - Problems

• Chat Removal Process did not start until 1995
• Cherokee Creek, KS
• Quapaw have only recently been allowed to sell
  chat
• Though piles are shrinking, they still exist

23
First Suggestion

• When a site is discovered, air, wind, soil, and
  human blood level testing should be performed at
  the outset
• Information should be collected to check for
  exportation of hazardous materials

24
Second Suggestion

• Temporary Cover of areas that are contaminated
  and cannot be removed
• Due to size or governmental issues
• Temporary seepage limited, and materials used for
  cover can be re-used to cap the area under the
  piles
• Silver Bow Creek, Chisman Creek, Ohio River park

25
Negative Aspects of the Processes Used at Tar
Creek and Superfund Policy
26
State Intervention

• Is usually a beneficial aspect for any Superfund
  Site
• It started years after problem was identified
• Usually due to lack of progress
• Eventually occurs at sites where a PRP is not
  found
• Improves funding and public awareness

27
Suggestions

• Once a site is listed on the NPL, bring the issue
  to State Legislature
• Begin public awareness and funding drive
  immediately
• States should adopt emergency funding measures in
  case of a hazardous release
• Currently 431 schemes in 44 states, with 3.2
  billion revenue

28
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

• RI/FS currently has three goals
• Reduce Toxicity
• Reduce Mobility
• Reduce Volume
• Aims to control acute threats immediately

29
RI/FS Problems

• Sometimes focuses on fixing the problem, rather
  than preventing the problem from increasing or
  spreading
• Does not have a policy outline for chronic threats

30
Suggestions

• Divide RI/FS into two parts
• One group focuses on treating problems that exist
• Second group focuses on preventing problem from
  spreading or increasing
• Implement a policy for treating chronic threats,
  based on how long the population has already been
  exposed

31
Communication and Division Between Regions

• EPA is divided into several regions
• Oklahoma is in a separate region than Missouri
  and Kansas
• Separate districts treating the same problem in
  different ways
• Cherokee Creek removed contaminated soil first

32
Resulting Problems

• A beneficial action may be taken in one area, but
  not be considered in another area with the same
  problem
• Funding for research and remediation is split
  among parties, becoming less effective
• Several completely different solutions may be
  implemented partially to treat one problem

33
Suggestions

• When a problem affects multiple regions, the
  regions involved should try to cooperate as a
  group, and focus on the entire problem
• States should try to collaborate in funding and
  researching solutions
• When an action is taken in one area, and proven
  beneficial, other states and regions with similar
  problems should be alerted

34
Summary

• Superfund does not have a rigid structure
• Good for flexibility
• Could result in important aspects being
  overlooked
• Several additional measures could be implemented
  to the Superfund Process to increase
  effectiveness in preserving human health and
  treating pollution

35
Summary of Proposed Suggestions

• Community Education Programs should be
  implemented once a site is placed on the NPL
• When contamination is noticed in one medium, air,
  soil, water, and human exposure levels should be
  investigated immediately to determine cross
  contamination

36
Summary of Proposed Suggestions

• Extent of removal of hazardous materials should
  be investigated
• Contaminants that will take time to remove due to
  size or restrictions should be treated with a
  temporary cover systems
• State legislatures should be notified of areas on
  the NPL

37
Summary of Proposed Suggestions

• States should begin raising funds and notifying
  public immediately, regardless of presence of PRP
• Divide RI/FS into two parts, one focusing on
  treatment, the other on prevention of further
  contamination
• Construct a policy for treating chronic threats

38
Summary of Proposed Suggestions

• Superfund sites with similar problems should
  collaborate to research effective treatments,
  raise funds, and educate the public
• Communication between similar or related sites
  should be increased

39
Conclusion

• Several new steps could be added to the Superfund
  Process to increase the program effectiveness
• Superfund sites should be constantly reviewed in
  order to determine new beneficial measures that
  could be added to the Superfund treatment process
• Always treat Superfund as a work in progress

40
References

• Ranking Hazardous Waste Sites National Resource
  Council
• Beyond Superfailure D. Mazmanian and D. Morell
• Rethinking Superfund A.J. Obadal et al, NLCPI
• Cleaning Up the Mess T. Church and R. Nakamura
• Fixing Superfund Lloyd S. Dixon
• An Analysis of State superfund Programs50 State
  Study, 1990 Update EPA September 1990
• Private sector Cleanup Expenditures and
  Transaction Costs at 18 Superfund Sites L. Dixon,
  D. Drezner, J. Hammitt
• Superfund Program Implementation Manual, FY 1993
  EPA 1993
• The Superfund Program 10 Years of Progress EPA
  1991
• Environmental Protection at the State Level E. J
  Ringquist

41
Special Thanks

• Dr. Deborah Dalton
• Dr. Bob Nairn
• Judy Duncan
• Mary Ellen Turris

42
Questions?