SUPERFUND

Document Sample
SUPERFUND Powered By Docstoc
					         SSH 8341
Project and Field Experience
  Don Legg/ Carl Edlund

                Part II
         Class 10 April 3, 2000
             Carl Edlund
 “edlund.carl@epa.gov”; 214-665-8124
    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
    SUPERFUND PROCESS:
         CERCLA
           SCREEN

                       STUDY
            RI/FS
STANDARD

SETTING    ROD, RD


                     EXECUTION
             RA
              SUPERFUND
             CASE STUDIES
 SITES    ‘80 ‘82 ‘84 ‘86 ‘88 ‘90 ‘92 ‘94 ‘96 ‘98 ‘00
SIKES          RI/FS    R         RA
FRENCH          RI/FS       R       RA
N. ZINC
                                    R/S R    RA
S. SHIP                                     R
AG. ST.                                         R
HEN’TA                                          R

               CERCLA       SARA         REFORM
      CONFLICTING INTERESTS AT
       HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
     PARTY                 TYPICAL INTEREST
   CITIZENS:
    – Near neighbor           – Health, compensation
    – Far Neighbor            – Stigma, property value
    – Innocent Landowner      – Lost investment


   MONEY SOURCES
    – Mortgage Lenders        – Liability, recovery
    – Insurers                – Run away- no actuarial info


   MEDIA                     – Circulation, market share
      CONFLICTING INTERESTS AT
       HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
     PARTY         TYPICAL INTEREST
   OTHER AGENCIES
    – Natural Resource      – Natural resource
      Trustees                damages, their mission
    – Health Agencies       – Funding for health
                              programs
    – State Environmental   – State verses federal
      Agency                  authority

    – PRP Agencies          – Own priorities and
                              systems
      CONFLICTING INTERESTS AT
       HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
     PARTY                   TYPICAL INTEREST
   SPECIAL
    INTERESTS
    – Toxic Tort Attorneys      – $$ , justice, gain
    – Technical experts         – $$, reputation, ‘cause’
    – Eco- Groups               – The ‘Cause’
    – Unions                    – Labor contract
    – Chamber of Commerce       – Jobs, property values
    – Vendors                   – $$, Their Solution
      CONFLICTING INTERESTS AT
       HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
     PARTY                TYPICAL INTEREST
   ELECTED REPS
    – Local                  – Blame?, re-election
    – State                  – Avoidance
    – Federal                – Re-election, platform
   JUDICIAL
    – District Attorney      – Re-election [different
                               party]
    – Judge                  – Unique Solution
        CONFLICTING INTERESTS AT
         HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
     PARTY                TYPICAL INTEREST
   EPA TEAM
    –   HQ Policy Staff      – New ‘Pilots’ for ideas
    –   HQ Attorneys         – ‘Supreme’ intent
    –   Team Attorney        – Big ‘win’
    –   Team Scientists      – Fun = research
    –   Management           – Execute the law
                               …elected Reps OK?
                             – Protect govt’s broader
   DOJ                        interest
        CONFLICTING INTERESTS AT
         HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
       PARTY              TYPICAL INTEREST
   PRP ORG.S
    – Lead RP                – Corporate philosophy- fight,
                               flight, or site

    – Small RP               – Cash out,

    – In-house Council       – Corporate name, other cases

    – Out-house Council      – ‘Supreme’ opportunities

    – Plant manager          – Community acceptance
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
    REGULATORY PROCESS
P                        S
R   S                    O
                  E
O   T       S            L
                  X
B   U       T            V
                  E
L   D       D            E
                  C
E   Y                    D
M                        ?

         REVIEW
           SUPERFUND 1986:
      PROBLEMS              SOLUTIONS
   UST/LUST             SARA I
                         SARA II:
   COST                  – $ 8.6 BILLION


   OBJECTIVITY           –   PRP ROLES
                          –   CRITERIA
                          –   TAGS
                          –   ATSDR
   SLOW PROGRESS        EPA: HQ TO RO’S
   TOXICS [BHOPAL]      SARA III
SUPERFUND PROCESS:
       SARA
      SCREEN
                PRP
       RI/FS


      ROD, RD
                PRP
        RA
                 H.H. & E.




                     COST/EFF




REMEDY SELECTION TREE: CERCLA
                        H.H. & E

                         PERMANENT
     TREAT MEP
                          ARARS
     ONSITE +
                                   COST
   INNOVATE
REDUCE M/T/V                        S & L EFFECT

COMMUNITY                             STATE


        REMEDY SELECTION TREE: SARA
FRENCH LTD.

 CASE STUDY
    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
     SOIL CLEAN UP LEVELS
SUPERFUND WOOD-TREATER SITES
                      1986 TO 1992
10+3

10+2
       INDUSTRIAL
10+1


10 0

10-1                                        RESIDENTIAL


10-2
        10-7           10-6          10-5        10-4
               LIFETIME EXCESS CANCER RISK
  Integrated Environmental Uptake
Bio-kinetic Model [‘IEUBK’] for Lead

       500 ppm Pb
            1,000 ppm Pb

                                TARGET:
                             < 5% CHILDREN
                                > 10 ug/dL




  0   2   4   6   8  10 12 14 16 18       20
      BLOOD LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (ug/dL)
 SUPERFUND POST SARA [1993]

    REMEDY    PRE- SARA   POST SARA

CONTAINMENT     47%         17%

OFFSITE         35%         4%

NO + ACTION      0%         15%

TREATMENT       15%         63%
    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
SUPERFUND


    NPL.      CERCLIS




BROWNFIELD,
OTHER SITES
    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
    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!]
SUPERFUND REFORM: POST 1993
       PROBLEMS        SOLUTIONS
   SLUGGISHNESS      ADMIN. REFORMS

   STIGMA            DUMP INVENTORIES
                      BROWNFIELDS

   HEAVY-HANDED      DEMINIMIS AND
    ENF.               DEMICROMAS

   COMMUNITY         COMMUNITY
    DISTRUST           ADVISORY GROUPS
                      ENVIRONMENTAL
                       JUSTICE E.O.
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
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
NATIONAL ZINC

  CASE STUDY
                        SUPERFUND SITE TRENDS
                             EPA REGION 6
                 40
                                                                DUMPS
# OF NEW SITES




                 30
                                                                FED. FAC.

                 20
                                                                BANKRUPT

                 10                                             W/ PEOPLE


                      1980 - 1986   1987 - 1993   1994 - 1999

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:11
posted:10/8/2012
language:Latin
pages:29