Incorporating Technical Impracticability into the Air Force Cleanup Program

Transcription

1 Incorporating Technical Impracticability into the Air Force Cleanup Program Thomas DeVenoge, Lt. Col., SAF/IEE Susan Soloyanis, Ph.D., P.G., Mitretek Systems Catherine Vogel, P.E., Mitretek Systems Michael Kavanaugh, Ph.D., P.E., Malcolm Pirnie March 006

2 Overview Air Force Cleanup Program Challenges Policy Technical impracticability (TI) Regulatory basis Guidance Status at NPL sites TI in the Air Force Cleanup Program

3 Challenges FY03 top-down review of the AF Cleanup Program Total program cost increasing Longer time getting to ROD New cleanup requirements Emerging contaminants More stringent cleanup standards Military Munitions Response Program Stable or decreasing budget 3

4 Policy SAF/IEE memo: Air Force Cleanup Program Performance- Based Management Policy, 7 Oct 04 Align Cleanup Program with President s Management Agenda Simplify, improve and integrate cleanup emphasis on performance, not process Performance-based site investigation and remedy selection ARAR* waiver suitability analysis Promote view of air, land and water as assets that demand sustainment to maximize warfighter capability *Applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements 4

5 TI Regulatory Basis ARAR Waivers under CERCLA and the NCP Interim Action Equivalent Standard of Performance Greater Risk to Health and the Environment Technical Impracticability Inconsistent Application of State Standard Fund Balancing EPA policy (guidance on TI) OSWER Directive , September 993: Guidance for evaluating the technical impracticability of ground-water restoration OSWER Directive , January 995: Consistent Implementation of the FY 993 Guidance on Technical Impracticability of Ground-water Restoration at Superfund Sites 5

6 TI Waiver ARAR waiver based on the technical impracticability of meeting requirements within a reasonable timeframe from an engineering perspective Specific contaminant(s) Specific, designated TI Zone Must have early consensus from regulators Must maintain protectiveness of human health and the environment Cost is generally not a primary reason, but could be if inordinately high A TI decision can always be revisited 6

7 Timing of TI Waivers NPL Site Listing Site Investigation Remedial Investigation (RI) Early Action/ Interim Measures Feasibility Study (FS) TI Application TI WAIVER FRONT-END TI WAIVER Interim ROD TI Application Record of Decision (ROD) Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) POST- IMPLEMENTATION TI WAIVER Construction TI Application Malcolm Pirnie, 004 O&M Monitor Performance and Evaluate 7

8 Factors influencing TI Contaminant-related factors Presence of NAPL, large areal extent, contamination at depth Contaminant-specific properties that increase the complexity of remediation (i.e., low solubility, high sorption potential, low biodegradability) Hydrogeologic setting Fractured hydrogeologic environment Heterogeneous or layered granular media Other remediation constraints (e.g., buildings, on-site wetlands, mission-critical activities) Stakeholder familiarity with and acceptance of ARAR waivers 8

9 NAS Findings Regarding Complex Source Zones No reported cases of large DNAPL sites restored to drinking water standards Recent studies demonstrate that restoration of sites with DNAPL contamination to pre-contamination levels may not be practically achievable TI waivers are appropriate if RAOs* are clearly defined and if sufficient data illustrate that RAOs cannot be met by any feasible approach *Remedial Action Objectives National Academy of Sciences, 005. Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation 9

10 Number of TI Waivers 84 RODs mention TI Only 59 TI waivers approved for groundwater Only 0 waivers granted at DoD sites 609 NPL sites 0

11 Locations of TI Waivers

12 Dates of TI Waivers TI Waiver Decision Documents by Year ( ) Number of Decision Documents

13 Low Implementation Factors Lack of knowledge of process Regulatory reluctance for TI approach Data requirements thought too expensive Skepticism on part of site management Stakeholder resistance based on fear of public perception Lack of recognition of benefits 3

14 Incorporating TI into AF Cleanup Program Currently in the process of identifying Air Force sites where TI waivers may be appropriate Task Develop a screening method Complexity of contamination, hydrogeology, other factors Stakeholder involvement and consideration of TI Collect site-specific data Solicit input from Air Force and AFRPA Contact program managers to get site-specific information 4

15 Incorporating TI into AF Cleanup Program Task Implement the screening method Evaluate and classify restoration potential at AF sites Identify candidate sites where TI waivers may be appropriate Task 3 Provide assistance to candidate sites Training and support Detailed assessment of specific sites as needed Task 4 Develop Air Force guidance Review scope and intent of EPA, Army and DoE guidance and policies Enhance TI guidance for Air Force 5

16 Conclusions The Air Force is transforming to a performance-based cleanup program emphasizing results over process Suitability analysis for TI waiver is an integral component of the AF cleanup program TI from an engineering perspective within a reasonable timeframe must be considered Cleanup program history indicates emphasized review of TI applicability is warranted TI decisions must be supported by data and stakeholders 6

17 References EPA, 993. Guidance for evaluating the technical impracticability of groundwater restoration. OSWER Directive EPA) 995. Consistent Implementation of the FY 993 Guidance on Technical Impracticability of Ground-water Restoration at Superfund Sites. OSWER Directive EPA Superfund Information Systems Record of Decision System (RODS) ( Malcolm Pirnie, 00. Technical impracticability waivers: Guidelines for site applicability and the application process Phase I report. Prepared for the U.S. AEC, January. Malcolm Pirnie, 004. Technical Impracticability assessments: Guidelines for site applicability and implementation Phase II report. Prepared for the U.S. AEC, March. National Academies of Sciences, 005. Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation. 7

18 Contacts Tom de Venoge, Lt Col, USAF, BSC, P.E. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Environment, Safety and Occupational Health) 665 AF Pentagon Washington D.C Tel: (703) Catherine Vogel, P.E., Mitretek Systems 80 Woodland Hills Ave. NW. Atlanta, GA 3038 Tel: