Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 75
3 Remedial Objectives, Remedy Selection, and Site Closure The issue of setting remedial objectives touches upon every aspect and phase of soil and groundwater cleanup, but none perhaps as important as defining the conditions for “site closure.” Whether a site can be “closed” depends largely on whether remediation has met its stated objectives, usu- ally stated as “remedial action objectives.” Such determinations can be very difficult to make when objectives are stated in such ill-defined terms as removal of mass “to the maximum extent practicable.” More importantly, there are debates at hazardous waste sites across the country about whether or not to alter long-standing cleanup objectives when they are unobtainable in a reasonable time frame. For example, the state of California is closing a large number of petroleum underground storage tank sites that are deemed to present a low threat to the public, despite the affected groundwater not meeting cleanup objectives (California State Water Quality Control Board, 2010; Doyle et al., 2012). In other words, some residual contamination remains in the subsurface, but this residual contamination is deemed not to pose unacceptable future risks to human health and the environment. Other states have pursued similar pragmatic approaches to low-risk sites where the residual contaminants are known to biodegrade over time, as is the case for most petroleum-based chemicals of concern (e.g., benzene, naph- thalene). Many of these efforts appear to be in response to the slow pace of cleanup of contaminated groundwater; the inability of many technologies to meet drinking water-based cleanup goals in a reasonable period of time, particularly at sites with dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) and complicated hydrogeology like fractured rock; and the limited resources available to fund site remediation. 75
OCR for page 76
76 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES This chapter focuses on the remedial objectives dictated by the common regulatory frameworks under which groundwater cleanup generally occurs. It first describes the phases of cleanup for the primary federal programs and their milestones, the gaining of which is often used as a metric of progress and ultimately success. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com- pensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) guidance outline criteria for setting remedial objectives and points of compliance, and for selecting remedies to meet them. The chapter closes with a discussion of alternative strategies to ad- dress the current limitations on achieving groundwater restoration, such as CERCLA Technical Impracticability waivers for some portion of the site. This includes sustainability concepts that have become relevant to decision making regarding remedy selection and modification in the past few years. The topic of setting cleanup objectives has a long history and was a significant component of the debates in the 1980s during the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) in 1986 and the establishment of the ARAR process in Section 121 of SARA. Several National Research Council (NRC) reports (1994, 2005) have provided insights and recommendations on improving the process of establishing objectives for groundwater cleanup. The DoD has also provided recom- mendations for setting objectives through reports published through the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (e.g., Sale and Newell, 2011). Recently the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) provided a comprehensive guidance document on setting objec- tives for remediation at DNAPL sites (ITRC, 2011). All these efforts have informed this overview of the objective setting process, which considers how that process might evolve in light of advances in our understanding of technical limitations to aquifer restoration. THE CLEANUP PROCESS AND ASSOCIATED OBJECTIVES The current regulatory framework for remediation of hazardous waste sites evolved from a complex collection of federal, state, tribal, and even local statutes, regulations, and policies. CERCLA and RCRA are the two federal programs that govern most subsurface cleanup efforts, and most state programs are similar to or even authorized under these federal models. CERCLA CERCLA provides federal authority for cleanup of sites with hazardous substances, usually excluding petroleum-only sites. At sites with no viable responsible party, EPA can fund remedial activities from the Superfund—a special account initially funded by a tax on petroleum and chemical compa-
OCR for page 77
REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES, REMEDY SELECTION, AND SITE CLOSURE 77 nies, but presently derived from general tax revenues. However, at a major- ity of sites, the response is funded by private parties, either through a legally binding agreement to perform the remedy (e.g., an Administrative Order of Consent) or by reimbursing EPA for its remedial costs. At federal facilities cleanup is funded by the agency responsible for releasing contamination. Initial Phases A site regulated through CERCLA generally progresses through the Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection, listing on the National Priorities List (NPL), site investigation (Remedial Investigation), remedial alternative assessment (Feasibility Study), remedy selection (Record of Decision), re- mediation implementation (remedial design followed by construction), and long-term monitoring and institutional controls until the site media con- centrations are at or below unrestricted use levels (see Table 2-3). If there is an immediate threat to human health or the environment (“imminent and substantial endangerment”), the Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection may trigger an interim emergency response. The Remedial Investigation consists of detailed site characterization, while the Feasibility Study incorporates the evaluation of remedial alterna- tives that might meet remedial action objectives. The Remedial Investiga- tion and Feasibility Study may be conducted concurrently, and, in any case, they influence each other. The Remedial Investigation generally includes a human health risk assessment and the determination of site-specific reme- dial action objectives. The Feasibility Study develops a series of remedial al- ternatives that describe the placement, timing, and remedial technology for cleanup activities, and it includes a detailed comparison of these alternatives with respect to criteria established under CERCLA regulations (see below). Setting of Cleanup Goals and Selection of Remedies CERCLA’s overarching groundwater remediation goal is to restore groundwater to its “beneficial use” “wherever practicable” (EPA, 2009a). A common beneficial use of groundwater, if conditions are appropriate, is that it be a source of drinking water. In addition, the groundwater plume “should not be allowed to migrate and further contaminate the aquifer or other media (e.g., vapor intrusion into buildings; sediment; surface water; or wetland)” (EPA, 2009a). The alternative remedial strategies in the Feasability Study are evalu- ated based on a balancing of the nine criteria of the National Oil and Haz- ardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, usually called the National Contingency Plan (EPA, 1990):
OCR for page 78
78 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES 1. Overall protection of human health and the environment (a thresh- old criterion that must be met by the chosen remedy) 2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate require- ments (ARARs) (also a threshold criterion) 3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence (a balancing criterion) 4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume (a balancing criterion) 5. Short-term effectiveness (a balancing criterion) 6. Implementability (a balancing criterion) 7. Cost (a balancing criterion) 8. State acceptance (modifying criterion that is considered but not re- quired to be met or balanced) 9. Community acceptance (modifying criterion) Threshold Criteria. The first two criteria, called threshold criteria, must be met by the chosen remedy. The criterion “protective of human health” is sometimes embodied in a quantitative risk assessment and has been interpreted as having a calculated excess lifetime cancer risk between 10–6 and 10–4 or a hazard index < 1.0.1 “Protective of the environment” is less clearly defined. At most Superfund facilities with groundwater contamination, federal and state drinking water standards (such as maximum contaminant levels, MCLs, and non-zero maximum contaminant level goals) are established as ARARs and hence the groundwater cleanup goals. The designation of a drinking water standard as an ARAR is often independent of whether the particular groundwater is, in fact, currently used as a source of drinking water or is likely to be so used in the future, as long as it is capable of being used as a source of drinking water. There is considerable variability in how EPA and the states consider groundwater as a potential source of drinking water. EPA has defined groundwater as not capable of being used as a source of drinking water if (1) the available quantity is too low (e.g., less than 150 gallons per day can be extracted), (2) the groundwater quality is unacceptable (e.g., greater than 10,000 ppm total dissolved solids, TDS), (3) background levels of metals or radioactivity are too high, or (4) the groundwater is already contaminated by manmade chemicals (EPA, 1986, cited in EPA, 2009a). California, on the other hand, establishes the TDS criteria at less than 3,000 ppm to define a “potential” source of drinking water. And in Florida, cleanup target levels 1 The hazard index (HI) is “the sum of more than one hazard quotient for multiple sub- stances and/or multiple exposure pathways. The HI is calculated separately for chronic, sub- chronic, and shorter-duration exposures.” The hazard quotient is “the ratio of an exposure level to a substance to a toxicity value selected for the risk assessment for that substance (e.g., LOAEL or NOAEL)” http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/glossary.htm.
OCR for page 79
REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES, REMEDY SELECTION, AND SITE CLOSURE 79 for groundwater of low yield and/or poor quality can be ten times higher than the drinking water standard (see Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-520 Ground Water Classes, Standards, and Exemptions). Some states designate all groundwater as a current or future source of drinking water (GAO, 2011). Although EPA generally defers to state or local groundwater classifications on these issues (EPA, 2009a), EPA policy recognizes that less stringent cleanup levels may be appropriate for groundwater that is not a current or reasonably expected future source of drinking water (GAO, 2011). In addition to federal ARARs, states may propose requirements as state ARARs, subject to EPA acceptance. There is considerable variability between federal and some state ARARs, even for the same chemicals or situation, as described in Box 3-1. Table 3-1 demonstrates that the MCL for an individual compound can range over more than an order of mag- nitude, with some states being much more stringent than EPA. There are multiple reasons for these differences including differences in risk targets, different interpretations of technical feasibility, and different interpretations of toxicological findings. Another example of variability among EPA and the states concerns the point of compliance. EPA has long directed that the point of compliance monitoring of the final cleanup levels for contaminated groundwater can apply “at and beyond the edge of the waste management area when waste is left in place” (EPA, 1988a, 1990, 1991a). (Note that the drinking water standard in this situation still defines whether the groundwater within the source area may be subject to unrestricted use.) At landfills the application of this policy is relatively straightforward, while at sites where DNAPL has migrated from the original area of release the application of this strategy may be more uncertain.2 On the other hand, some states require that all points within a contaminated aquifer meet the state ARAR. All this vari- ability can lead to different remedial objectives, different decisions about the chosen remedy, and different long-term outcomes. Although the most commonly used ARAR, it is noteworthy that MCLs are not based on consideration of the vapor intrusion pathway, suggesting that there can be limitations to relying on ARARs based solely on drinking water ingestion in making decisions regarding remediation of groundwater contamination. Vapor intrusion is discussed further in Chapters 5 and 6. Balancing Criteria. On a case-by-case basis, the remedy selection crite- ria (particularly the balancing criteria) are “balanced in a risk management 2 DNAPL may migrate within the area of waste management. At some CERCLA sites, the edge of the waste management area has been “flexibly applied,” while at others the edge of the waste management area has been “rigorously applied.”
OCR for page 80
80 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES BOX 3-1 State/Federal Differences in Goals for Groundwater Restoration The differences between state and federal goals for groundwater restoration often hinge on the present and expected future use of the groundwater in ques- tion. However, even if the defined use of the groundwater is for drinking, there can still be differences in the actual numeric goals. This is because states have the option of developing their own, more restrictive MCLs that will replace the EPA’s MCL as the enforceable limit. Examples for different chemicals are given in Table 3-1, which provides a sense of the potential magnitude of state/federal differences but is not meant to be comprehensive. In some cases, the difference between the federal MCL and the state MCL is more than an order of magnitude. For example, the federal drinking water limit for cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE) is 70 ppb (1 ppb = 1 μg/L), whereas the California standard is 6 ppb. Both values are based on non-cancer liver toxicity in animals, with the differences mainly due to varying interpretations of toxicological findings. As another example, the federal MCL for carbon tetrachloride is 5 ppb, whereas the California standard is 0.5 ppb. Both carbon tetrachloride standards had similar conclusions regarding liver cancer in rodents as the critical endpoint. The differences for carbon tetrachloride are related to measurement feasibility and determination of the practical quantitation limit, rather than to differences in the underlying risk assessment (CalEPA, 2000). In some cases, there are chemicals for which there are state standards but no federal standards. One example is perchlorate, where the Massachusetts standard is 2 ppb and the California standard is 6 ppb. Although both states chose the same toxicological study as the basis for establishing these limits, Massachusetts adopted a more conservative approach, both with respect to interpretation of the underlying human exposure study by Greer and coworkers (Zewdie et al., 2010), as well as with application of uncertainty factors to derive the non-cancer toxic- ity criterion (i.e., the reference dose or RfD). In addition, Massachusetts applied different assumptions regarding drinking water intake and other sources of per- chlorate. Although the calculated health-based value for Massachusetts was 0.49 ppb, the state chose 2 ppb for risk management purposes to minimize compliance issues. In contrast, the California health-based value of 6 ppb is the same as the standard. The reasons for differences in drinking water limits are varied and include the application of different toxicity studies to establish underlying health-based values, differences in application of uncertainty factors, variations in selection of exposure assumptions, and differences in risk management considerations. In some cases, the differences reflect the date when a standard was set, and does not always incorporate the new information that has become available for the more recent standard.1 State/federal differences in drinking water limits may result in different levels of cost effectiveness and health protectiveness of remedial decisions across sites, as well as present risk communication challenges. 1 Dueto lack of consideration of technical feasibility, advisory values can lower than mandated values, but they are not mandatory.
OCR for page 81
REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES, REMEDY SELECTION, AND SITE CLOSURE 81 judgment as to which alternative provides the most appropriate solution for the site” (EPA, 1990). Under CERCLA, there is a preference for a permanent solution; indeed, EPA “expects to use treatment to address the principal threats3 posed by a site, wherever practicable” (EPA, 1996a). However, there is “nothing in CERCLA §121 to suggest that selecting per- manent remedies is more important than selecting cost-effective remedies” (Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1533, D.C. Cir. 1993). Rather, the emphasis on permanent solutions and treatment is balanced by the co-equal mandate that remedies be cost-effective through the addition of the wording to the maximum extent practicable (EPA, 1996a) (see Box 3-2). EPA believes that “certain source materials are generally addressed best through treat- ment because of technical uncertainties regarding the long-term reliability of containment of these materials, and/or the consequences of exposure should a release occur,” while other source materials generally can be reli- ably contained (EPA, 1996a). An issue discussed in Chapter 7 but introduced here is that of the dis- count rate and its role in remedy selection in addressing one of the nine NPL criteria, namely cost effectiveness. During the feasibility study, cost estimates are developed for each remedial option to identify their relative cost effectiveness. Once costs are identified and quantified for each remedial option, they are discounted to a present value to adjust for differing annual costs across options. For example, some remedies may have large costs in the near future and other remedies may have large costs in the distant fu- ture; discounting is a mechanism to compare the costs of remedial options using a common dollar metric. The logic for discounting is that if firms were able to invest these funds they would earn a positive rate of return in the future, which means that expenditures in the present have a higher cost than expenditures in the future. Currently, the annual cost of each option in EPA feasibility studies for private parties is discounted to present values using a presumptive value of 7 percent, which EPA argues reflects the long-term return to private capital in the United States (OMB, 2003; EPA and USACE, 2000; EPA, 2010a). Discount rates from Appendix C of OMB Circular A-94 (OMB, 2012), which currently are significantly lower than 7 percent, are generally used for all federal facilities. Under the current approach to discounting, options with costs in the distant future will have lower present values than options with front-loaded costs. For example, with the discount rate of 7 percent, $1 next year is worth about 94¢ today and $1 in 50 years is worth about 3¢ when dis- 3 In addition to drum wastes and other similar source material, principal threats are where the toxicity and mobility of the source material combine to present an ingestion risk of greater than 10–3 (EPA, 1991c).
OCR for page 82
82 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES TABLE 3-1 Examples of State versus Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels cis-1,2- 1,2,3-Trichloro- Tetrachloroethene Trichlorethene Dichloroethene propane Name (PCE) (TCE) (cis-1,2-DCE) (1,2,3-TCP) U.S. EPA 5 ppb 5 ppb 70 ppb n/a California 5 ppb 5 ppb 6 ppb n/a (state MCL) Florida 3 ppb 3 ppb 70 ppb n/a (state MCL) (state MCL) Massachusetts 5 ppb 5 ppb 70 ppb n/a New Jersey 1 ppb 1 ppb 70 ppb n/a (state MCL) (state MCL) New York 5 ppb 5 ppb 5 ppb 5 ppb (state MCL) (state MCL) aEPA interim advisory level for perchlorate is 15 ppb. bThe Massachusetts MCL “is directed at the sensitive subgroups of pregnant women, infants, children up to the age of 12, and individuals with hypothyroidism. They should not consume drinking water containing concentrations of perchlorate exceeding 2 ppb. MassDEP [Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection] recommends that no one consume counted to the present. Thus, a cost-efficiency determination tends to favor selection of options that have larger costs in the future and lower near-term costs. Pump and treat, in particular, is an option that discounting favors because the remedy might operate for decades and the present-value calcu- lation indicates the costs of this operation beyond 50 years is $0. A lower discount rate, such as the 3 percent social rate for public projects, would increase the present value of $1 in 50 years to 23¢ today, but it is still likely
OCR for page 83
REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES, REMEDY SELECTION, AND SITE CLOSURE 83 Carbon Tetrachloride Perchlorate Source Internet URL 5 ppb n/aa National http://www.epa.gov/ Primary safewater/contaminants/ Drinking Water index.htm#listmcl Regulations 0.5 ppb 6 ppb State Code of http://www.cdph.ca.gov/ (state MCL) (state MCL) Regulations certlic/drinkingwater/ (Chapter 15, Documents/Lawbook/dw- Title 22, Articles regulations-01-01-2009. 4 and 5.5) pdf 3 ppb n/a State Code of http://www.dep.state. (state MCL) Regulations fl.us/legal/Rules/ (Chapter drinkingwater/62-550.pdf 62-550) 5 ppb 2 ppb 2008 Standards http://www.mass.gov/dep/ (state MCL)b and Guidelines water/drinking/standards/ for Contaminant dwstand.htm in Mass. Drinking Water 2 ppb n/a State Code of http://www.state. (state MCL) Regulations nj.us/dep/watersupply/ (N.J.A.C. 7:10) sdwarule.pdf 5 ppb n/a State Code of http://www.health.state. Regulations ny.us/environmental/ (Part 5, Subpart water/drinking/part5/ 5-1) tables.htm water containing perchlorate concentration greater than 18 ppb” (http://www.mass.gov/dep/ water/drinking/standards/dwstand.htm). SOURCE: Modified, with permission, from Julie Blue, Cadmus Group, Inc. (2009). that the alternative with higher future costs would be selected over options with high costs in the near future. Most economists agree that discounting is necessary, because to not discount would overlook the differential time paths of costs across rem- edy options. There is a long-standing debate over what discount rate is appropriate for use in environmental cases where the costs may be inter- generational. While it is beyond the Committee’s charge to opine on the appropriate discount rate, discounting should be considered very carefully
OCR for page 84
84 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES BOX 3-2 Guidance on Definition and Application of “Maximum Extent Practicable” The Committee was charged with answering the question: what should be the definition of “to the extent practicable” when discussing contaminant mass removal. Terms like “maximum extent practicable (MEP),” “to the extent practical,” “practicability,” etc., are routinely heard when discussing what can be achieved during groundwater remediation. For example, EPA groundwater remediation guid- ance, which applies to all EPA non-UST cleanup programs, repeatedly states that EPA’s goal is to attain drinking water standards “wherever practicable.” The UST regulations 40 CFR 280.64, which apply only to light nonaqueous phase liquid (LNAPL), requires removal of free product “to the maximum extent practicable” as determined by the implementing agency at sites where free product is pres- ent. These terms are not defined explicitly or quantitatively in the federal or state statutes, regulations, or settlements and administrative orders that dictate reme- diation requirements for soil and groundwater. That is, statements as explicit as “70% reduction in concentration” or “removal of mobile DNAPL” are not provided as definitions of “maximum extent practicable.” The main statutory reference to the term “maximum extent practicable” is found in CERCLA in reference to practicability during remedy selection, where practi- cability reflects a balancing of the nine criteria specified in the NCP (EPA, 2009a, p. 4, footnote 9). EPA guidance states that CERCLA’s emphasis on permanent so- lutions and treatment should be balanced by “the co-equal mandate for remedies to be cost-effective” through the addition of the wording “to the maximum extent practicable” (EPA, 1996a). EPA considers cost to be relevant to technical imprac- ticability because that term is “ultimately limited by cost,” although EPA policy is that cost should generally play a subordinate role in a technical impracticability determination unless compliance would be “inordinately costly” (EPA, 1996a). For this limited use of the term “maximum extent practicable,” an explicit defini- tion is already available. EPA has concluded that treatment is not practicable when in the weighing of alternatives along with the other four National Contin- gency Plan (NCP) balancing criteria listed above. Specifically for projects whose duration exceeds 30 years, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (2000) recommend that the present value analysis include a “no discount- ing” scenario to demonstrate (for comparison purposes only) the impact of the discount rate on the total present value cost of the remedy and the relative amounts of future annual expenditures. Modifying Criteria. Normally the lead agency evaluates a number of remedial alternatives against the first seven criteria and presents that evalu- ation, designating a preferred alternative to the public (i.e., community
OCR for page 85
REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES, REMEDY SELECTION, AND SITE CLOSURE 85 (1) “treatment technologies are not technically feasible or are not available within a reasonable time frame;” (2) “the extraordinary volume of materials or complex- ity of the site may make implementation of the treatment technologies impracti- cable;” (3) “implementation of a treatment-based remedy would result in greater overall risk to human health and the environment due to risks posed to workers, the surrounding community, or impacted ecosystems during implementation (to the degree that these risks cannot be otherwise addressed through implementa- tion measures);” or (4) “implementation of the treatment technology would have severe effects across environmental media” (EPA, 1997a). As an example of the second item above, the use of containment as a presumptive remedy for municipal landfills (EPA, 1997b) means that removal of waste from source areas in those situations can be interpreted as generally not practicable. This case-by-case ap- plication of the concept of practicability has been upheld in several court cases [State of Ohio v. U.S. Env’l’t Prot. Agency, 997 F.2d. at 1532 and U.S. v. Ottati & Goss, Inc., 900 F.2d 429 (1st Cir. 1990) (opinion by now Supreme Court Justice Breyer)]. Thus, as long as the remedy is chosen in accordance with the NCP and is performing in accordance with reasonable environmental engineering practices, that is the end of decision making with respect to what is practicable for remedy selection. The term “maximum extent practicable” is often used informally as a measure of remediation progress even though it has no regulatory bearing in that context. In Chapter 7, the Committee suggests that remedies at complex sites be regularly assessed to determine whether they are being implemented in a manner consis- tent with good environmental engineering practice and their resulting performance. If a remedy reaches a point where continuing expenditures bring little or no reduc- tion of risk prior to attaining drinking water standards, the Committee recommends that there should be a reevaluation of the future approach to cleaning up the site (called a Transition Assessment). When this point is reached, the chosen active remedy can be said, de facto, to have been operated to the “maximum extent practicable.” stakeholders) in the form of a Proposed Plan. With regard to the two final, modifying criteria, neither the state nor the community have the legal au- thority to “veto” a remedy. The provision does mean that the lead agency must engage in a formal community involvement process and, at each NPL facility, provide a technical assistance grant to one eligible nongovernmen- tal organization to hire an independent technical consultant to advise the community. EPA recognizes about 70 Community Advisory Groups at NPL facilities across the country. From 1988 to 2010, 323 technical advisory grants have been awarded (205 providing $50,000 or less and 15 providing a total of more than $250,000) (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance, 2011). Following the public comment period, the lead agency selects a rem- edy and memorializes it in a Record of Decision.
OCR for page 102
102 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES of the transaction costs associated with the process, or because of future litigation risks should residual contamination persist (see Chapter 5). Sustainability as a Cleanup Objective The historic definition of sustainable is “[d]evelopment that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987). According to the Bruntd- land report (1987), the most “sustainable” policies address environmental, economic, and social aspects of a problem (the so-called triple bottom-line approach)—a definition much broader than that encompassed by the fed- eral and state hazardous waste laws. If sustainability is to be a remedial goal, this broad policy definition needs to be translated into concrete direc- tion on how to clean up a site “sustainably.” Incorporating sustainability concepts into remediation decision making is a developing, but still incomplete, practice at EPA and other agencies. EPA, DoD, the states, and others have “green” or sustainable remediation policies (DoD, 2009; Army Corps of Engineers, 2010; EPA, 2008; ITRC, 2011). All ten EPA Regions have adopted Clean and Green policies for contaminated sites, generally with green remediation goals including to minimize total energy use and to reduce, reuse, and recycle materials and wastes (EPA, 2011e). However, “green” remediation and even some of these agency guidance documents that use the word “sustainability” do not include all of the elements of sustainability found in the Brundtland report. For example, EPA’s definition of green remediation is the “practice of considering all environmental effects of remedy implementation and incorporating options to minimize the environmental footprints of cleanup actions” (EPA, 2011e). This is narrower than the concept of sustainable re- mediation as “balance[ing] outcomes in terms of the environmental, social, and economic elements of sustainable development” (see Table 3-3 below and Bardos et al., 2011; NRC, 2011). In fact, some argue that sustainable decisions should consider community improvements, jobs, and quality of life, and the benefits to the surrounding community (NRC, 2011). Several examples of sustainable remediation that illustrate the range of concepts that can be incorporated are given in Box 3-3. Each of the Sustainable Remedy Selection environmental factors listed in Table 3-3 (i.e., column 1), and some of the social and economic factors (columns 2 and 3), fit into the standard EPA and state remedy selection criteria. For example, impacts on human health and safety (a social fac- tor), impacts on various environmental media and natural resources, and community involvement can be assessed under existing remedy selection schemes. However, ethical and equity considerations, indirect economic costs and benefits, and employment and capital gain (among others) are
OCR for page 103
REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES, REMEDY SELECTION, AND SITE CLOSURE 103 TABLE 3-3 Sustainable Remedy Selection Factors Environmental Social Economic 1. Impacts on air (including 1. Impacts on human health 1. Direct economic climate change) and safety costs and benefits 2. Impacts on soil and 2. Ethics and equality 2. Indirect economic ground condition 3. Impacts on neighborhood costs and benefits 3. Impacts on groundwater and locality 3. Employment and and surface water 4. Communities and employment capital 4. Impacts on ecology community involvement 4. Induced economic 5. Use of natural resources 5. Uncertainty and evidence costs and benefits and waste 5. Project lifespan and flexibility SOURCE: Adapted, with permission, from CL:AIRE (2011). not explicitly provided for in any cleanup statute or existing programs. Many of these broader societal factors could be taken into account at fed- eral facilities if the government decided to expend its own funds, but they are likely to be difficult to include as enforceable requirements on private sector decision making without amendments to existing cleanup statutes. Industry groups are currently driving sustainable remediation efforts. For example, approximately 87 percent of the largest companies in the Drugs and Biotechnology, Household and Personal Products, and Oil and Gas Operations sectors have environmental sustainability programs, ac- cording to a survey of the five largest U.S. companies in each of the 26 industrial sectors (Cowan et al., 2010). Most companies develop their own sustainability policies based on their sector, stakeholder interests, products or services, and business model. In the hazardous waste arena, the leader in sustainability is the Sustainable Remediation Forum (or SURF, http://www. sustainableremediation.org), which includes industry, government agencies, environmental groups, consultants, and academia. The SURF approach, described in greater detail below, advises that one “should balance the level of sustainability analysis in accordance with the budget and available resources” (Holland, 2011; Ellis and Hadley, 2009). A Method for Estimating Sustainability There are a variety of potential methods for including sustainability factors in selecting a remedy, but none are generally accepted and no U.S. regulatory agency has formally adopted a methodology. The SURF Frame- work (Holland, 2011) “provides a systematic, process-based, holistic ap- proach for: (1) performing a tiered sustainability evaluation, (2) updating the conceptual site model (CSM) based on the results of the sustainability
OCR for page 104
104 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES BOX 3-3 Examples of Sustainability in Hazardous Waste Remediation There are a number of clear examples of hazardous waste site remediation where sustainability is being taken into consideration in the remedy selection process. One example is the Bell Landfill NPL site in northern Pennsylvania. Large trucks were previous used to carry landfill leachate to a wastewater treatment plant with the proper permit—a 640-km road trip. Chemical analysis of the leach- ate showed that the only remaining components were dissolved iron and man- ganese. Now, a spray irrigation system is used to distribute the leachate onto the landfill cap, which is covered with grass. As a result, the grass on the cap no longer dies during the summer, and the local unpaved roads are no longer im- pacted by the heavy truck traffic during wet weather. Changing how the leachate was disposed of also avoided the release of about 3,400 tons of CO2. At the Brevard, NC, polymer recycling site, off-spec films were previously disposed of in an industrial landfill that contains up to 80,000,000 pounds of PET. They are now being excavated, inspected, and shipped to China where the mate- rial is being recycled (the final use of the material is not known). Once the project is complete, the landfill will be converted into parkland and deeded to the State Forest. This is an example of resource recovery and recycling, leading to lower greenhouse gas emissions (which could be as much as 100,000 tons of CO2). Note that the life-cycle assessment for this project included all of the impacts as- sociated with shipping the materials to China. Another example of sustainability in site remediation is at DuPont’s Chambers Works site—a 146-acre landfill with about 10 million tons of waste. Three remedia- tion options were evaluated: excavation, stabilization, and bioremediation. Qualita- tive consideration of a number of factors, including the amount of CO2 produced, led to the choice of bioremediation. Using bioremediation instead of excavation was predicted to reduce potential emissions by over 2,500,000 tons of CO2, avoid odor problems in the adjacent community, and avoid the need for round-the-clock intense lighting and heavy equipment operation, which would disturb nearby residents. At a Naval Air Station Superfund facility in Weymouth, Massachusetts, EPA modified an excavation remedy to allow reuse of the soil as a subgrade fill layer rather than disposing of the soil offsite, which “significantly reduced energy con- sumption associated with truck trips for off-site disposal and importing common fill and allowed for the beneficial reuse of the excavated materials in a manner which is protective of human health and the environment.” Emissions of regulated air pollutants were also reduced (EPA, 2010d). The Reichhold Chemical Site is a former paint and coatings manufacturer located south of downtown Chicago. The site was redeveloped following RCRA clean closure that left no residual contamination on the site. Two large retail stores were opened on this formerly abandoned site, and 500 new inner city jobs were created. In addition to the obvious economic benefits, there is also the social ben- efit of having major retailers in the community; residents previously had to drive over 10 miles to find comparable services.
OCR for page 105
REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES, REMEDY SELECTION, AND SITE CLOSURE 105 evaluation, (3) identifying and implementing sustainability impact mea- sures, and (4) balancing sustainability and other considerations during the remediation decision-making process.” The SURF approach includes a series of separate toolkits (organized into tables) for the investigation, remedy selection, remedial design and construction, and operation and maintenance phases of site cleanup. For each phase, the team identifies parameters, objectives, metrics, and benefits and challenges to applying these metrics to each phase of the remediation (Butler et al., 2011). For example, the project team and stakeholders re- view which of the potential sustainability parameters (i.e., consumables, physical disturbances and disruptions, land stagnation, air impacts, water impacts, solid wastes, job creation, and remediation labor) are appropriate for consideration at a particular site (see Butler et al., 2011). For each of the relevant parameters, the team identifies the applicable objectives, the metrics for measuring the achievement of each objective, the benefits that are likely to be derived, and challenges of using this parameter for each remedy being considered for the site. The team considers these factors, benefits, and tradeoffs explicitly in the table. The results obtained during this exercise are balanced with project considerations to determine the most appropriate remedy. Critical to the implementation of the SURF approach is the preferred future use of the site, including consideration of (a) local laws, ordinances, and deed restrictions; (b) the end use of the site and the likely future devel- opment around the site; (c) the capacity to establish and maintain necessary institutional controls; (d) potential liabilities and community needs; and (e) long-term technical and environmental issues (Holland, 2011). Legal Basis for Considering Sustainability As mentioned previously, sustainability criteria are not included explic- itly in CERCLA or RCRA guidance on remedy selection or modification (e.g., the feasibility study guidance, EPA, 1988b). Consideration of social factors (such as jobs or the economic well-being of a community) is not traditionally within the statutory authority of environmental regulators and is particularly difficult to envision. For example, if consideration of the impact on job creation for each remedial alternative were required, the result could be that the most expensive remedy is chosen since it is likely to create more jobs. Similarly, if job creation is considered on a site-specific basis, it may be necessary to evaluate the net gain or loss of jobs caused by the devotion of a company’s capital to remediation versus expanding their production or other economic activities. Such dramatic changes in remedy selection criteria are more appro- priately adopted by statute (i.e., create a tenth criterion and specify how
OCR for page 106
106 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES social factors are to be weighed on a site-specific and remedy-specific ba- sis). More detailed direction than can be found in SURF guidance will be necessary concerning how to balance social factors, economic factors, and environmental factors. Absent a statutory basis (either federal or state), regulators cannot require a more costly remedy than a remedy that is consistent with the current statute and regulations. Of course, potentially responsible parties including the military may decide voluntarily to imple- ment a remedy that goes beyond what might be selected by application of the nine remedy selection factors, based on a general good neighbor policy or adoption of a policy such as sustainable development. There is greater incentive to use sustainability factors in remedy selection when the costs of the remedial alternatives are similar. However, a more sustainable remedy is not necessarily a less expensive one. Thus, it remains to be seen whether implementation of more sustainable remedial alternatives will be feasible at hazardous waste sites. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS At most hazardous waste sites in the United States, meeting drink- ing water standards is the long-term goal of remediation. Unfortunately, drinking water MCLs will not likely be met in many affected aquifers for decades, especially at complex sites. Fortunately, EPA’s current remedia- tion guidance provides flexibility within the remedy selection process in a number of ways, although there are legal and practical limits to this flex- ibility. The following conclusions and recommendations discuss the value of exploring goals and remedies based on site-specific risks, sustainability, and other factors. By design (and necessity), the CERCLA process is flexible in (a) deter- mining the beneficial uses of groundwater; (b) deciding whether a regula- tory requirement is an ARAR at a site; (c) using site-specific risk assessment to help select the remedy; (d) using at least some sustainability factors to help select the remedy; (e) determining what is a reasonable timeframe to reach remedial goals; (f) choosing the point of compliance for monitoring; and (g) utilizing alternate concentration limits, among others. These flexible approaches to setting remedial objectives and selecting remedies should be explored more fully by state and federal regulators, and EPA should take administrative steps to ensure that existing guidance is used in the appropri- ate circumstances. Often the same level of protection can be attained for lower costs by exercising this flexibility. To fully account for risks that may change over time, risk assessment at contaminated groundwater sites should compare the risks from taking
OCR for page 107
REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES, REMEDY SELECTION, AND SITE CLOSURE 107 “no action” to the risks associated with the implementation of each reme- dial alternative over the life of the remedy. Risk assessment at complicated groundwater sites is often construed relatively narrowly, with an emphasis on risks from drinking water consumption and on the MCL. Risk assess- ments should include additional consideration of (a) short-term risks that are a consequence of remediation; (b) the change in residual risk over time; (c) the potential change in risk caused by future changes in land use; and (d) both individual and population risks. Progress has been made in developing criteria and guidance concern- ing how to consider sustainability in remedy selection. However, in the absence of statutory changes, remedy selection at private sites regulated under CERCLA cannot consider the social factors, and may not include the other economic factors, that fall under the definition of sustainability. At federal facility sites, the federal government can choose, as a matter of policy, to embrace sustainability concepts more comprehensively. Similarly, private companies may adopt their own sustainable remediation policies in deciding which remedial alternatives to support at their sites. New guidance is needed from EPA and DoD detailing how to consider sustainability in the remediation process to the extent supported by existing laws, including measures that regulators can take to provide incentives to companies to adopt more sustainable measures voluntarily. REFERENCES AEC (U.S. Army Environmental Command). 2004. Technical Impracticability Assessments: Guidelines for Site Applicability and Implementation. Phase II Report. http://aec.army. mil/usaec/cleanup/techimprac.pdf. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Decision Framework for Incorporation of Green and Sustain- able Practices into Environmental Remediation Projects. Interim Guidance 10-01; March 5, 2010. http://www.environmental.usace.army.mil/pdf/IG%2010-01%2003_05_10%20 doc.pdf. Bardos, P., B. Bone, R. Boyle, D. Ellis, F. Evans, N. D. Harries, and J. W. N. Smith. 2011. Applying sustainable development principles to contaminated land management using the SURF-UK Framework. Remediation 21(2):77–100. Bruntland, G. 1987. Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf. htm. Butler, P., L. Larsen-Hallock, C. Glenn, and R. Armstead. 2011. Metrics for integrating sus- tainability evaluations into remediation projects. Remediation 21(3):81-87. http://www. sustainableremediation.org/library/guidance-tools-and-other-resources. Cadmus Group, Inc. 2009. Re: Draft Remedial Investigation Review. Memo date February 20, 2009. To: Eric Sunada, Executive Director, San Gabriel Valley Oversight Group. From: Dr. Julie Blue, Senior Hydrologist, The Cadmus Group, Inc. http://www.sgvog. org/images/CadmusMemo_Sunada_V2.pdf.
OCR for page 108
108 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES CalEPA. 2000. Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water: Carbon tetrachloride. Sacramento, CA: CalEPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. http:// oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/carbtet.pdf. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region. 2003. Staff Report for Regular Meeting of February 6, 2003. Prepared January 7, 2003. Item Number: 13. Subject: Perchlorate Sites. California State Water Quality Control Board. 2010. Draft Underground Storage Tank Low- Threat Site Closure Policy. September 7, 2010. Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance. 2011. Superfund Technical Assistance Grants for Community Groups at National Priority List Sites. https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=pr ogram&mode=form&tab=step1&id=a83b10849f1dc74453b499c5d9e0370f (accessed September 21, 2011). CL:AIRE (Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments). 2011. A Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remediation. Annex 1: The SuRF- UK Indicator Set for Sustainable Remediation Assessment. London: CL:AIRE. Cohen, J. T., B. D. Beck, and R. Rudel. 1997. Life years lost at hazardous waste sites: Remedia- tion worker fatalities vs. cancer deaths to nearby residents. Risk Analysis 17(4):419-425. Cowan, D. M., P. Dopart, T. Ferracini, J. Sahmel, K. Merryman, S. Gaffney, and D. J. Paustenbach. 2010. A cross-sectional analysis of reported corporate environmental sus- tainability practices. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 58(3):524-538. DoD (U.S. Department of Defense). 1994. Guidance on the Environmental Review Process to Reach a Finding of Suitability to Transfer for Property Where Release or Disposal Has Occurred. http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/pdf/fost_prprty_release_occurred.pdf. DoD. 2009. Consideration of Green and Sustainable Remediation Practices in the Defense En- vironmental Restoration Program. Office of the Secretary of Defense (August 10, 2009). DoD. 2010. Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress 2010. http://www. denix.osd.mil/arc/upload/08_FY09DEPARC_Restoration_DENIX.pdf. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1998. Joint DOE/EPA Interim Policy Statement on Leas- ing Under the “Hall Amendment.” June 1998. http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/ hall.htm. Doyle, C. P., J. C. Teraoka, D. Pfeffer Martin, and S. Torabi. 2012. State Water Resources Control Board Unanimously Adopts Low-Threat Case Closure Policy for Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Sites. Legal Alert. May 21, 2012. Ellis, D. E., and P. W. Hadley. 2009. Sustainable Remediation White Paper—Integrating Sustainable Principles, Practices, and Metrics into Remediation Projects. http://www. sustainableremediation.org/library/issue-papers/SURF%20White%20Paper.pdf. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Guidelines for Ground-Water Classifica- tion. Final Draft. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Ground-Water Protection. www.epa. gov/superfund/health/conmedia/gwdocs/pdfs/grndh2o.pdf. EPA. 1988a. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Compliance with Other Laws: Interim Final (at xvi). EPA/540/G-89/006. Washington, DC: EPA. EPA. 1988b. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, Interim Final. EPA/540/G-89/004. http://rais.ornl.gov/documents/GUIDANCE. PDF. EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS). Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) (Interim final). Washington, DC: EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA. 1990. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. 55 Fed. Reg, at 8732. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
OCR for page 109
REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES, REMEDY SELECTION, AND SITE CLOSURE 109 EPA. 1991a. ARARs Q’s & A’s: General Policy, RCRA, CWA, SDWA, Post-ROD Information, and Contingent Waivers. Publication 9234.2-01/FS-A. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/ pdfs/92-34201fsa-s.pdf EPA. 1991b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals) Interim. EPA/540/R-92/003. http://rais.ornl.gov/prg/HHEMB.pdf. EPA. 1991c. A Guide to Principal Threat and Low Level Threat Wastes. Publication 9380.3- 06FS. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. http://www. epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/gwdocs/pdfs/threat.pdf. EPA. 1993. Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Ground-Water Resto- ration. OSWER Dir. No. 9234.2-25. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA. 1996a. The Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy Selection Process. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ policy/remedy/pdfs/cost_dir.pdf. EPA. 1996b. Memorandum from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator, Office of En- forcement and Compliance Assurance, and Elliot Laws, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Reponses, to EPA Regions. Re: Coordination between RCRA Corrective Action and Closure and CERCLA Site Activities at 2 (September 24, 1996). EPA. 1996c. Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treatment Technologies for Contami- nated Ground Water at CERCLA Sites. Final Guidance at 15-18. EPA 540/R-96/023. EPA. 1997a. Rules of Thumb for Superfund Remedy Selection at 12-13. EPA 540-R-97-013. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. http://www.epa. gov/superfund/policy/remedy/rules/rulesthm.pdf. EPA. 1997b. EPA Landfill Presumptive Remedy Saves Time and Cost. Directive No. 9355.0- 66I, EPA 540/F-96/017. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (5202G) Inter- mittent Bulletin, Volume 1 Number 1. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/ presump/finalpdf/landfill.pdf. EPA. 1997c. Performance Based Measurement System. 62 Fed. Reg. 52,098 (October 6, 1997). http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/1997/October/Day-06/f26443.htm. EPA. 2001a. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. EPA 540-R-01-007; OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/5year/guidance.pdf. EPA. 2001b. 40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142 [WH–FRL–6934–9] RIN 2040–AB75. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. EPA. 2003. The DNAPL Remediation Challenge: Is There a Case for Source Depletion? EPA/600/R-03/143. Ada, OK: EPA NRMRL. EPA. 2004. Handbook of Groundwater Protection and Cleanup Policies for RCRA Cor- rective Action for Facilities Subject to Corrective Action Under Subtitle C of the Re- source Conservation and Recovery Act at xii. EPA/530/R-01/015. http://www.epa.gov/ correctiveaction. EPA. 2005. MEMORANDUM from Michael Cook, Director of Office of Superfund Reme- diation and Innovative Technology, TO: Superfund National Policy Managers, Regions 1–10, Re: Use of Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) in Superfund Cleanups. July 19, 2005. OSWER Directive 9200.4-39. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/ gwdocs/pdfs/aclmemo.pdf. EPA. 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4./240/B-06/001. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf.
OCR for page 110
110 MANAGING THE NATION’S CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITES EPA. 2008. Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Re- mediation of Contaminated Sites. EPA 542-R-08-002. http://www.clu-in.org/download/ remed/green-remediation-primer.pdf. EPA. 2009a. Memorandum from Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation and Office of Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office Re: Summary of Key Exist- ing EPA CERCLA Policies for Groundwater Restoration at 6 (June 9, 2009). EPA. 2009b. Final Second Five-Year Review Report, Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Su- perfund Study Area, Mountain View and Moffett Field, California. EPA. 2010a. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington, DC: EPA National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy. EPA. 2010b. Overview of Primary Environmental Regulations Pertinent to BRAC Cleanup Plan Development: Appendix A. http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/appenda.htm. EPA. 2010c. EPA Activities Provide Limited Assurance of the Extent of Contamination and Risk at a North Carolina Hazardous Waste Site. Report No. 10-P-0130. May 17, 2010. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Inspector General. EPA. 2010d. Explanation of Significant Differences to the Records of Decision for Operable Unit 7 Former Sewage Treatment Plant and Operable Unit 1 West Gate Landfill and to the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Operable Unit 22 Area of Concern 55C Naval Air Station South Weymouth, Weymouth, Massachusetts. http://www.epa.gov/ superfund/sites/-rods/fulltext/e2010010003569.pdf. EPA. 2011a. RCRA and CERCLA cleanup programs have roughly the same approach to cleanups. CERCLA: The Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program in EPA RCRA Orientation Manual at VI-13. http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/pubs/orientat/. EPA. 2011b. RCRA Orientation Manual 2011: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Chapter III: Permitting of Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities. http://www.epa. gov/osw/inforesources/pubs/orientat/rom38.pdf. See p. III-109. EPA. 2011c. Plan EJ 2014: Supporting Community-Based Action Programs. http://www.epa. gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/community-action.html. EPA. 2011d. Groundwater Road Map Recommended Process for Restoring Contaminated Groundwater at Superfund Sites. OSWER 9283.1-34. Washington, DC: EPA OSWER. EPA. 2011e. Contaminated Site Clean-up Information, Green Remediation. Accessed October 17, 2011. http://clu-in.org/greenremediation/regions/index.cfm. EPA and DoD. 2005. Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency and the U.S. Department of Defense; Subject: Support for Department of Defense (DoD) Cleanup Implementation for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Installations Rounds I – IV (October 5, 2005). http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/pdf/brac_mou. pdf. EPA and USACE. 2000. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates during the Feasibility Study at 4-2. EPA 540-R-00-002; OSWER 9355.0-75. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/ remedy/pdfs/finaldoc.pdf. ESTCP (Environmental Security Technology Certification Program). 2011. Alternative End- points and Approaches Selected for the Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater. Washington, DC: ESTCP. Frost, F. J., J. Chwirka, G. F. Craun, B. Thomson, and J. Stomps. 2002. Physical injury risks associated with drinking water arsenic treatment. Risk Analysis 22(2):235-243. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 2011. Early Goals Have Been Met in EPA’s Cor- rective Action Program, but Resource and Technical Challenges Will Constrain Future Progress Report. GAO-11-514. Washington, DC: GAO.
OCR for page 111
REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES, REMEDY SELECTION, AND SITE CLOSURE 111 Greenberg, G. I., and B. D. Beck. 2011. Use of years of potential life lost (YPLL) for risk as- sessment at hazardous waste sites. Pp. 602-607 in Encyclopedia of Environmental Health. J. O. Nriagu (ed). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Press. Hamilton, J. T., and W. K. Viscusi. 1999. How Costly is “Clean”? An analysis of the benefits and costs of Superfund site remediations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18(1):2-27. Holland, F. 2011. Framework for Integrating Sustainability into Remediation Projects. http:// www.sustainableremediation.org/library/guidance-tools-and-other-resources. ITRC (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council). 2009. Evaluating LNAPL Remedial Technologies for Achieving Project Goals. Washington, DC: ITRC LNAPLs Team. ITRC. 2011. Green and Sustainable Remediation: State of the Science and Practice. www. itrcweb.org/Documents/GSR-1.pdf. Leigh, J. P., and A. F. Hoskin. 2000. Remediation of contaminated sediments: a comparative analysis of risks to residents vs. remedial workers. Soil and Sediment Contamination 9(3):291-309. Mansfield, C., P. Sinha, and M. Henrion. 2009. Influence Analysis in Support of Character- izing Uncertainty in Human Health Benefits Analysis. Contract EP-D-06-00. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Benefits/ influence_analysis_final_report_psg.pdf. NRC (National Research Council). 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washing- ton, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 1997. Innovations in Soil and Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 2003. Environmental Cleanup at Navy Facilities: Adaptive Site Management. Washing- ton, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2005. Contaminants in the Subsurface. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2011. Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 2003. Circular A-4 September 17, 2003. To the Heads of Executive Agencies and Establishments. Subject: Regulatory Analysis. OMB. 2012. Memorandum to Federal Agencies, Re: 2012 Discount Rates for OMB Cir- cular No. A-94. (January 3, 2012). http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/ memoranda/2012/m-12-06.pdf. Sale, T. C., and C. Newell. 2011. Guide for Selecting Remedies for Subsurface Releases of Chlorinated Solvents. ESTCP Project ER-200530. Sweeney, D. 2010. New Jersey Site Remediation. Presentation to the NCR Committee on September 13, 2010. Washington, DC. Mr. Sweeney is Assistant Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. U.S. Air Force. 1995. Streamlined Oversight: Moving Sites Faster through Streamlined Over- sight. U.S. Air Force Project MUHJ947070. Air Combat Command with the Assistance of Versar. Zewdie, T., C. M. Smith, M. Hutcheson, and C. Rowan-West. 2010. Basis of the Massachu- setts reference dose and drinking water standard for perchlorate. Environmental Health Perspectives 118:42-48.
OCR for page 112