Risk Based Corrective Action Approach. Managing Change and Superfund Delisting

Transcription

1 Risk Based Corrective Action Approach Managing Change and Superfund Delisting

2 Topics Community Involvement Roles and responsibilities State policy: statutes and performance criteria Federal Superfund Delisting

3 Effective Community Involvement Seek out the community leaders and find most effective method to reach residents in affected area Get information out early, but accurately Be available for questions throughout the process

4 More Community Involvement Suggestions Communicate level of risk to public in basic terms Make public aware that their input is valued Define the community s level of involvement in remediation decision

5 Valentine Clark PHOTO

6

7 Valentine Clark CA prior to Community Involvement: Cap, redirect stream No preservation of green space CA after Community Involvement: Green space preservation built into CA evaluation

8 Policy Drivers Statutory Requirement Perfomance Criteria

9 Policy Drivers State Statutory Requirements: Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA, Stat 115B) Groundwater Protection Act (MN Stat 103H)

10 Policy Drivers State Statutory Requirements: Health Risk Limits (HRLs( HRLs,, MN Rule ) Waters of the State (MN Rule 7050) Underground Waters (MN Rule 7060)

11 Policy Drivers Performance Criteria: Based on receptors HRLs MCLs Aquatic Life Std Derivation of one of the above

12 Policy Drivers Risk driving groundwater remediation: Impacts to private and public water supply Discharge into surface water Cross contamination Impacts to sole source aquifers

13 Superfund Corrective Action Sites: Groundwater SF GW Corrective Action Sites ( 68 of 245 ) = 28% Total SF Sites (245)

14 Federal Superfund Delisting 45 NPL sites listed to date in MN 21 NPL sites delisted 24 NPL sites remain listed

15 Federal Superfund Delisting NPL delisting procedures: Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites EPA540-R OSWER Direction A 09A-P PB January 2000

16 Federal Superfund Delisting Deletion ensures: Decisions made and documented Construction activities complete and verified Public participation Deletion does not equal closure!!

17 Federal Superfund Delisting EPA Criteria: Response actions are implemented All CERCLA fund-finance finance response implemented RI shows no threat and therefore a RA is not needed.

18 Federal Superfund Delisting Nuances: Operation and maintenance (O&M) is not a response action Sites with restoration objectives: Must achieve cleanup

19 Federal Superfund Delisting MN Sites Proposed in 2003 Koppers Coke General Mills Oakdale Dump Nutting Truck and Caster Lehilier

20 Federal Superfund Delisting Common Features: Objectives of plume containment Remedial action construction complete Controlling documents to ensure long- term effectiveness No State and Federal $$ needed for O&M Cost recovery in place for oversight

21 Federal Superfund Delisting EPA Response Reject delisting Delisting Criteria not met Cleanup not achieved

22 Case Studies: Koppers Coke Explanation Explanation of of Significant Significant Differences Differences Record Record of of Decision Decision Placed Placed on on NPL NPL Coking Operation

23

24

25 Federal Case Studies: Koppers Coke 1994 ROD Groundwater Objectives: Prevent migration beyond property boundary above HRLs Insitu bioremediation 1998 ESD: natural attenuation

26 Federal Case Studies: Koppers Coke 1999 Convert to Risk-based approach Natural attenuation Control exposure pathways Administrative controls No human exposure: HRLs not applicable

27 Federal Case Studies: Koppers Coke Perfomance Criteria: No current or future receptors Stable plume Perfomance criteria not needed

28 Federal Case Studies: Koppers Coke 2004 Risk-based CA Objectives: Plume stability: documented with 15+ years of data Administrative controls in place No-further action ROD amendment to document

29 Federal Case Studies: Koppers Coke Conclusion: Aquifer restoration is not an objective Sites meets all three NPL deletion criteria EPA must move forward with delisting

30 Federal Case Studies: General Mills Tech center, research lab Placed Placed on on NPL NPL Sept Consent Consent Order Order Oct. 1984

31

32

33 Federal Case Studies: General Mills Soil remedy not implemented 1984 CO Objective; Pump-and and-treat Prevent further migration Increase quality of groundwater

34 Federal Case Studies: General Mills Perfomance criteria: No human receptors within plume Environmental Receptors: St. Peter: HRLs Mississippi River

35 Federal Case Studies: General Mills Outstanding Issues: Institutional Controls Update objectives, aquifer restoration not needed Outdated performance criteria CO amendment

36 Federal Case Studies: General Mills Conclusions: Resolve outstanding issues Site meets 2 of the 3 EPA deletion criteria EPA must move forward with deletion

37 NPL Delisting Summary EPA agrees to re-evaluate evaluate Establish General Mills as a pilot site Identify common issues Develop strategy for future delisting

38 NPL Delisting Summary Potential Issues: Semantics: cleanup criteria, pump- and-treat Plumes existing off-site National policy: Cultural change at EPA

39 Risk-based CAs: : Summary Community involvement: more emphasis early in the project Statutory requirements must be met: Flexibility in criteria NPL delisting: involves managing change as well as technical criteria