Saving Superfund
Proposed changes to the Superfund
process based on the relative
successes and problems of Tar Creek
and other Superfund sites
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
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
Background Information
The Mining of the Tar Creek Area
Tar Creek Background
Information
Part of the Tri-State Mining District
– Kansas, Missouri
– All Superfund Sites
Lead, Zinc, and Cadmium
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
Effects of Mining
Water became contaminated
– Reddish color noticed
Chat removed from mining site and used
– Pavement
– Playground surfaces
– Parking lots
– Residential Driveways
EPA & DEQ Response
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.
Timeline of Events: OU2
1995 - IHS reports high blood lead levels in Indian
children
– 35% had elevated levels
– Countywide testing shows >30% 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
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
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
Overview of the Superfund
Process
The Superfund Process
Preliminary Hazard Remedial
Site
Discovery Assessment / Ranking & Investigation &
Site Inspection NPL Feasibility Study
Operation & Remedial Remedial Select
Maintenance Action Design Remedy
NPL
Deletion
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.
General Observations
Superfund process is not rigid
– Allows for flexibility for multiple problems
– Allows for some important aspects to be
overlooked
Successful Programs
Implemented at Tar Creek
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)
Community Education
Program
Effects
– Blood lead levels decreased
– Potentially hazardous activities decreased or
stopped, lowering risk of exposure
Problems
– Started late into the process
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
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
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
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
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
Negative Aspects of the
Processes Used at Tar Creek
and Superfund Policy
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
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
Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study
RI/FS currently has three goals
– Reduce Toxicity
– Reduce Mobility
– Reduce Volume
Aims to control acute threats immediately
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Programs:50 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
Special Thanks
Dr. Deborah Dalton
Dr. Bob Nairn
Judy Duncan
Mary Ellen Turris
Questions?