One of the areas that is getting attention under the new administration is the Superfund program (a.k.a., The Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act, CERCLA).
Having a long history in the environmental business, I have witnessed what was generally a good idea, cleaning up the nation’s past environmental sins, become a very sluggish bureaucratic program. It is widely recognized that progress on Superfund sites has been slow (if at all), leaving some of the nation’s highest priority sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) unaddressed.
The NPL was established in 1983. There are currently about 1330 NPL sites in the US (private and federal sites).
The administration’s attention on Superfund was covered last month on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition. In the on-line report, they said, “A new report from the EPA’s Inspector General suggests under-staffing during the Obama administration slowed Superfund cleanups across much of the country.”
NPR also stated, “Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt is vowing to speed the cleanup of toxic Superfund sites, part of a shift away from climate change and toward what he calls the ‘basics’ of clean air and water.”
The Plan for Superfund Sites
So what exactly is this administration proposing as it relates to Superfund? On May 22, 2017, Scott Pruitt commissioned a Superfund task force. The task force was given 30 days to provide their recommendations.
According to the EPA, their 42 recommendations are organized into five goals:
- Expediting Cleanup and Remediation;
- Re-invigorating Responsible Party Cleanup and Reuse;
- Encouraging Private Investment;
- Promoting Redevelopment and Community Revitalization; and
- Engaging Partners and Stakeholder.
There is much more detailed information to support these goals, but on July 25, 2017, Scott Pruitt issued a memorandum directing the EPA to take 11 specific actions quickly.
Just a few of these actions include:
- Taking steps to “expeditiously” effectuate control over any site where the risk of human exposure is not fully controlled;
- Prevention of source migration;
- Returning portions of sites to reuse; and
- Working with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs); state, tribal, and local governments; and real estate professionals to identify opportunities for PRP-lead cleanups to consider future reuse in cleanups.
Mr. Pruitt also states that, “We should not allow for years of study to delay addressing immediate risks.” The “years of study” is a comment that we’ve all heard several times with respect to Superfund Sites. That is, a lot of money spent studying a site, but little progress goes toward completion of a cleanup.
New Complicating Factors
While I did not see mention of this in reviewing the memorandum, there are recent (within the past several years) complicating factors in addressing assessment and remediation of Superfund Sites (as well as other sites). Notably is the vapor intrusion pathway, which was not a factor when Superfund was established, and emerging contaminants such as Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) that are pervasive, but are often in very-low concentrations.
New Cost-Effective Site Assessment Methods
The good news is, if the funding issues and other political issues can be addressed, there have been impressive advancements in site assessment technologies including Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT), Membrane Interface Probe (MIP), Laser Induced Fluorescence (LIF), and Passive Soil Gas. We have a couple of short videos explaining some of these new techniques (see Innovative Soil and Groundwater Investigation Technologies and Environmental Isotopes). These may prove beneficial in the EPA’s efforts.
There is little dispute that the Superfund program needs to be reinvigorated. We hope this new approach begins to move the program forward.
If you would like more information about some of the new approaches to site assessments that are covered in the videos, drop me a note or call me (248-932-0228, ext. 125), and I’ll put you in touch with my colleagues.