Groundwater and Soil Cleanup Improving Management of Persistent Contaminants (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 The Changing Regulatory Environment
2 The Changing Regulatory Environment
Pages 39-71
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 39... ...
because the technologies developed by SCFA will have to be capable of meeting applicable regulatory requirements. Historically, regulators have used drinking water standards as baseline cleanup goals for contaminated groundwater.
|
From page 40... ...
It authorizes environmental regulators to treat DOE facilities like privately owned industrial facilities and to subject them to the same rules and liabilities. For cleanup of contaminated groundwater and soil at DOE installations, the most important laws are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
|
From page 43... ...
To obtain a permit to operate a facility that is subject to RCRA, the facility owner must monitor the groundwater beneath and downgradient of the operation to determine if statistically significant increases in contaminant concentrations (higher than those occurring upgradient of the site) exist.
|
From page 44... ...
= action" program to clean up the contaminated groundwater and soil. Figure 2-1 shows the steps in the RCRA corrective action process.
|
From page 45... ...
remedial alternatives, and cost information are developed. Opportunity for questions and comments fimm site community and interested parties on issues associated with remedial activities.
|
From page 46... ...
, and nearly the same set of criteria are used in remedy selection under RCRA. The groundwater and soil cleanup goals under the two programs are similar as well, as discussed below.
|
From page 47... ...
, listed fifth and sixth in Table 2-1, do not directly regulate cleanup of contaminated groundwater and soil at DOE installations but rather provide the basis for setting groundwater and soil cleanup goals. The Toxic Substances Control Act, listed last in the table, has limited applicability to DOE groundwater and soil remediation projects; it includes special management provisions for cleanup of material containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
|
From page 48... ...
that can serve as cleanup goals for contaminated groundwater in place of MCLs. A corresponding procedure is available under CERCLA as part of the process of evaluating what are known as "applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements" (ARARs, which are environmental laws other than CERCLA that might apply to the site and that must be considered in setting cleanup goals)
|
From page 49... ...
192~. Soil Baseline Cleanup Goals For contaminated soils, there is no ARAR equivalent to the drinking water MCL.
|
From page 50... ...
Points of Compliance Under CERCLA, groundwater cleanup goals must be achieved throughout the contaminated site, with the exception of underneath "waste management" areas. According to the National Contingency Plan (NCP)
|
From page 51... ...
~. Cleanup Goals at DOE Installations Groundwater and soil cleanup goals at DOE installations must satisfy the requirements of applicable regulations, which in most cases means regulations under CERCLA and RCRA.
|
From page 53... ...
An informal review of RODs indicates that goals have yet to be determined for most of the DOE sites.
|
From page 54... ...
Technical Impracticability Waivers Under both CERCLA and RCRA, required cleanup standards for contaminated groundwater and soil can be waived in cases where achieving these standards is not possible with existing technologies. For example, CERCLA states that cleanup standards can be waived if cleanup is "technically impracticable from an engineering perspective" (EPA, 1990~.
|
From page 55... ...
Prior to the early 1990s, regulatory policies for implementing the "technical impracticability" provisions of CERCLA and RCRA were ambiguous. In 1993, due to increasing recognition of the limitations of groundwater cleanup technologies, EPA issued a guidance document clarifying its policies on granting waivers to cleanup standards based on technical considerations and specifying how site owners should go about applying for such waivers (EPA, 1993~.
|
From page 56... ...
interim or full-scale aquifer remediation systems are implemented because often it is difficult to predict the effectiveness of remedies based on limited site characterization data alone." It specifies that technical impracticability waivers can be granted prior to trying a full-scale remedy only "in cases where there is a high degree of certainty that cleanup levels cannot be achieved." Data from the CERCLA program indicate that, in general, EPA is following the policy of granting impracticability waivers in most cases only after full-scale remedies have been installed. Table 2-5 shows the number of technical impracticability waivers specified in RODs between 1989 and 1997; as shown, the number of sites with RODs specifying technical impracticability is still very small and has remained at a relatively constant level.
|
From page 57... ...
One of the most important provisions of the technical impracticability guidance document is EPA's right to require additional work in future years at sites with technical impracticability waivers. Sites with such waivers remain "open" to future requirements by EPA.
|
From page 58... ...
To a greater de gree, regulators are approving the use of "natural attenuation," rather than engineered cleanup remedies, to solve groundwater contamination problems or reduce the size of the area treated with engineered remedies. Figure 2-3 shows the increase in the use of natural attenuation for contaminated groundwater at CERCLA sites between 1985 and 1995.
|
From page 59... ...
The key EPA policy document pertaining to natural attenuation is a directive entitled Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites, finalized in 1999 (EPA, 1999~. The directive codifies that natural attenuation can be an acceptable remedy for contaminated groundwater and soil at CERCLA and RCRA sites.
|
From page 60... ...
Other organizations that have developed natural attenuation protocols include the Navy (Wiedemeier and Chapelle, 1998~; the American Society for Testing and Materials (1997~; a few states (see, for example, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1997~; the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (1997~; the American Petroleum Institute (1997~; and Chevron Corporation (Buscheck and O'Reilly, 1995, 1997~. DOE researchers at Sandia National Laboratories also recently developed a document entitled Site Screening and Technical Guidance for Monitored Natural Attenuation at DOE Sites (Brady et al., 1998a)
|
From page 61... ...
At nine sites, conventional pump-andtreat systems were eliminated and changed to monitored natural attenuation. Changes in required cleanup levels (usually to less stringent levels)
|
From page 62... ...
. Or monitoring Pump-and-treat system downsized In situ soil treatment or containment changed to ex situ treatment Soil remedy changed to capping and/or containment On-site soil treatment changed to off-site disposal or treatment Off-site treatment or disposal changed to on-site treatment or disposal Cleanup goals achieved; treatment discontinued Change in duration of monitoring Other 35 5 3 9 5 5 6 8 12 3 1 2 NOTE: Categories were based on interpretation of data provided by M
|
From page 63... ...
DOE and SCFA managers need to be familiar with the scope of these programs because their cleanup goals typically differ from those of CERCLA and RCRA, and thus the suite of possible remediation approaches differs as well. More than 200 contaminated sites across the country are now receiving funding from EPA for brownfields cleanups under the President's Brownfields Initiative, launched in November 1993 (EPA Region 8, 1998~.
|
From page 64... ...
DOE is a member of the Interagency Working Group on Brownfields (established in 1996 as a forum for information exchange among federal agencies) and in 1997 provided $315,000 to begin working with communities at DOE installations in potential brownfields areas (EPA, 1997a)
|
From page 65... ...
The Navy is considering using RBCA or a similar process for cleaning up its sites, as well. DOE cleanup managers and SCFA should be familiar with the RBCA process because its use may eventually expand beyond the cleanup of petroleum-contaminated sites, and it therefore may influence the selection of cleanup remedies.
|
From page 66... ...
~required? ~ No 1 ~1 T No Compliance Monitoring ~ No Further Action corrective action goals are satisfied.
|
From page 67... ...
Tier 3 provides the flexibility for more complex calculations to establish cleanup levels and may include additional site assessment, probabilistic evaluations, and sophisticated chemical fate and transport models. In a recent review of application of RBCA and other risk-based approaches for cleanup of Navy installations, the National Research Council (NRC, 1998)
|
From page 68... ...
CONCLUSIONS An understanding of DOE's changing legal obligations for the cleanup of contaminated groundwater and soil is critical to the effective administration of SCFA's program for developing new groundwater and soil cleanup technologies. SCFA must tailor its technology development program to ensure that DOE has the tools necessary to meet applicable legal requirements.
|
From page 69... ...
Use of monitored natural attenuation in place of or in conjunction with active cleanup remedies is increasing at contaminated sites nationwide, but implementing natural attenuation at DOE sites may require additional research to develop methods for predicting the fate of contaminants under conditions of natural attenuation. SCFA must understand current policy requirements for implementation of monitored natural attenuation and determine what additional research will be necessary for DOE to meet these requirements at appropriate sites.
|
From page 70... ...
1999. Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites.
|
From page 71... ...
Transmittal of OSWER directive 9234.2-25: "Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration." Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency. Katsumata, P
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.