1 / 45

SSH 8341 Project and Field Experience Don Legg/ Carl Edlund

SSH 8341 Project and Field Experience Don Legg/ Carl Edlund. Part II Class 9 March 27, 2000 Carl Edlund “ edlund.carl@epa.gov ”; 214-665-8124. KEY POINTS: PRIOR CLASS. ORIGINS : Deep roots + e-revolution = strong future ROLE OF GOVERNMENT : Evolving (still) Meta system

vaughn
Download Presentation

SSH 8341 Project and Field Experience Don Legg/ Carl Edlund

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SSH 8341Project and Field ExperienceDon Legg/ Carl Edlund Part II Class 9 March 27, 2000 Carl Edlund “edlund.carl@epa.gov”; 214-665-8124

  2. KEY POINTS: PRIOR CLASS • ORIGINS: • Deep roots + e-revolution = strong future • ROLE OF GOVERNMENT: • Evolving (still) • Meta system • REGULATORY PROCESS: • Some sanity

  3. ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS:RESPONSIBILITES 100% FED % RESP. STATE LOCAL 0 FEW NUMBER MANY LOW FREQUENCY HIGH HIGH NOVELTY LOW

  4. 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

  5. WHY SUPERFUND CASE STUDIES?? • CONCEPTS APPLICABLE TO ALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS • DRIVES DECISIONS IN OTHER MEDIA • WORKSHOP FOR PLACE-BASED U.S. POLICIES • Land use and re-use • Roles of government, community and business ALL come into play • Your next job ……….

  6. 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

  7. SUPERFUND: PROLOGUE • 1970 TO 1980: • Environmental Protection Agency • CAA, CWA, RCRA, FIFRA, etc, • New Kinds of problems: • Kepone ‘disaster’ 1976 • Love Canal • Bayou Sorrel: ‘CLAW’ ‘EPA’ • Others: Valley of Drums, Times Beach, etc • Call for Congressional Action

  8. UNREGULATED DUMPING NO EMERGENCY RESPONSE NO AUTHORITY NO $$ FOR CLEANUP UNKNOWN: # & RISK 1984 HSWA 1980 CERCLA 1980 CERCLA CERCLA TAX [$1.6 B] NCP, NPL SUPERFUND 1980:PROBLEMSSOLUTIONS

  9. 1984 HSWA TO RCRA • Generators of Hazardous Waste: • Major generators: manifest system: • EPA Rulemaking • State ‘delegation’ • Minor generators: • local authorities

  10. 1984 HSWA TO RCRA • Treatment Storage and Disposal [‘TSD’] Facilties: • Permit system: • interim status till 1989 • final permits • corrective action • EPA rulemaking • State ‘delegation’

  11. SUPERFUND: CERCLA • EMERGENCY RESPONSE: • Train wrecks, spills, leaking drums, explosions, etc • Anti ‘midnite dumping’ response • Generally: < $1 million, < 6 months • Federal Response Capability ….. ‘On Scene Coordinators (OSC’s)’ • No State Response Capability Why??

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

  13. SUPERFUND: CERCLA • NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN [‘NCP’] TO PROCESS 32,000 Sites • SCREENING: • Hazard Ranking System: • Crises: Removal Action, • Preliminary Assessment, • Site Investigation, • HRS Score: • > 28.5 National Priorities List for Further Study • < 28.5 Referred to State

  14. SUPERFUND: CERCLA • REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION [‘RI’]: • Field Sampling and Analysis • Report: Nature and Extent of Contamination: • Field methodologies? • No analytical techniques .. Statistical? • Laboratories ? • Primitive Risk Assessments:

  15. SUPERFUND: CERCLA • FEASIBILITY STUDY [‘FS’]: • Conceptual Feasibility of alternatives, if any • ‘Protect Human Health and the Environment’ • ‘Cost Effective’ • PROBLEMS: • What is ‘effective’?: Containment? Treatment? • What is ‘protective’?:

  16. SUPERFUND: CERCLA • RECORD OF DECISION [‘ROD’] ‘Standard Setting’: • Proposed Plan with Alternatives • 30 day comment period • Publicize RI, FS • Public Meetings • Result: Site-specific decision document: • Conceptual Remedy [Accuracy: +50%, -30%] • Basis for Federal Funding/ recovery of costs or • Responsible Party Action

  17. SUPERFUND: CERCLA • REMEDIAL DESIGN [‘RD’] Standard Setting: • Field pilot tests • More accurate characterization of waste quantity, contaminant characteristics • Logistics • End product: Bid Specifications • Fund or PRP lead • REMEDIAL ACTION [‘RA’] Execution

  18. SUPERFUND: CERCLA • LIABILITY- ‘Polluter Pays’: • Joint and Severable • Retroactive • ‘Potential Responsible Party’ [PRP]: Owner, Operator, Transporter, Contributor • Initial Implementation: • All or Nothing • Cost Recovery • 1995: 70% Fund, 30% PRP

  19. SUPERFUND • 1980 CONSERVATIVE ELECTIONS • ‘Regan Revolution’ for civilian agencies • ‘Do more with less’ • Business knows how to be efficient • WR Grace study of EPA • Ann Burford/Gorsuch + 22 appointed head of EPA: • EPA staffing efficiencies: 18,000 to 12,000 • New Superfund Program? …. Handle with private sector contractors with Washington D.C. staff

  20. SUPERFUND • 1982 ‘GREEN VOTE’ ELECTIONS • 73% of 68 elections swayed • California Governor’s race • Rita Lavelle and ROD • 1983 SHAKE-UP • Feb- Lavelle fired • Mar- Gorsuch and 21 HQ appointees resign • Oct- Ruckelshaus back • NPL- + 244 to 786

  21. SUPERFUND • 1984 NEW PROBLEMS • Dec- Bhopal • Union Carbide, Methyl Isocyanate • 3,300 die, $1 billion • USTS … screening shows thousands • 1985 TRANSITIONS • Lee Thomas replaces Ruckelshaus • 1,000 NPL sites but only 6 deletions

  22. SIKES CASE STUDY

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

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

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

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

  33. FRENCH LTD. CASE STUDY

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. 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)

  37. SUPERFUND POST SARA [1993]

  38. SUPERFUND POST SARA [1993] • INNOVATION = SUCCESS [SOMETIMES]: • Insitu-biotreatment can work but might not be 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

  39. SUPERFUND NPL. CERCLIS BROWNFIELD, OTHER SITES

  40. 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

  41. 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!]

  42. 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

  43. 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

  44. 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

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

More Related