REMEDY SELECTION

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

REMEDY SELECTION ISSUES

Below are two papers that I submitted to a Cal-EPA advisory group upon 
which I sit. While some of the other members of the group were 
receptive to my proposals, others found them unnecessary or too far 
"outside the box." And it's clear that I'm unfamiliar with all of the 
regulatory frameworks used for cleanup of non-military sites within the 
state.

I am posting this document to both CAREER/PRO Internet forums, on the 
military and brownfields, because it applies to both. For those of you 
on both lists, I apologize for the duplication.

Lenny Siegel

 CLEANUP: A CONTINUOUS PROCESS

The standard cleanup process, as theoretically defined in both state 
and federal laws and regulations, has proven useful over the past two 
decades, but there is room for improvement. I recognize that many 
people are reluctant to rethink any part of that process, because there 
have been so many attempts to undermine it, but I believe it is 
possible to simplify the process for responsible parties while at the 
same time enhancing the public's role in assuring protection of health 
and the environment.

THE SITUATION: A LINEAR MODEL THAT DOESN'T MATCH REALITY

The current model starts with preliminary assessment/site inspection 
(PA/SI) and moves through Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 
(RI/FS). Remedy selection is embodied in a Record of Decision (ROD), 
which is followed by the Remedial Design (RD) and Remedial Action (RA). 
However, rarely is a project so linear.

Removal actions, which really should be called "responses," often make 
sense, but increasingly the bulk of cleanup at many sites consists of a 
series of such interim actions. While removals require some level of 
public involvement, they do not provide the full opportunities for 
public participation associated with the preparation of the ROD. It's 
thus possible to complete most of the work as a site without full 
public review.

Permanent treatment is preferred in long-term remedies because removal 
actions designed to eliminate pathways may be effective in the short 
run, but they do not necessarily provide long-term protection. 
Operation and maintenance or monitoring becomes costly in the long 
haul, and as long as contamination remains, there is chance of an 
unexpected release. (Note that natural bidegradation, where it can be 
proven to occur, is a long-term remedy, not a removal action.) Some of 
us also support permanence because we believe that there is also an 
intrinsic value in preserving an unpolluted environment, even though we 
reluctantly recognize the practical limitations on achieving pristine 
results.

In addition, the ROD-based model misses the fact that studies continue 
- that is, the understanding of the nature and extent of contamination 
changes - throughout remedial action and design. In fact, actual 
remediation, sometimes conducted as removal actions, is frequently the 
best way to characterize contamination and soil/water conditions.

Communication, not only between responsible parties and regulators, but 
particularly with the public, is undermined by the large volume of 
paperwork generated in the process. (While this is primarily a process 
question, the proposal below addresses this problem as well.)

THE PROPOSAL: A LIVING SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Once PA/SI is conducted, cleanups should be governed by "living" site 
management plans that describe studies underway, removal and remedial 
actions as they are proposed, and long-term cleanup goals. These plans 
should be updated periodically or when there are major changes. The 
public should have the opportunity to comment as update occurs. The 
plans should contain schedules for real world activities and for the 
preparation and review of more detailed technical documents. Background 
information on the site should be included in the plan.

Technical data, including all past findings, should be maintained in an 
electronic repository, accessible by regulators and, following quality 
assurance/quality control, the public.

Detailed technical documents should be considered appendices to the 
Site Management Plan. They should not repeat the background information 
or other boilerplate already included in the plan. Data already in the 
electronic repository should be included in these documents only when 
necessary to help make cleanup decisions.

JUSTIFICATION

The key element of this approach is that there is no single point in 
the process at which a remedy is selected. It recognizes that remedies 
are continuously being revised. 

Removal actions need not be seen as alternatives to long-term remedies, 
but as steps toward them. The public is likely to be more receptive to 
short-term responses when they seem likely to lead to permanent, 
effective, long-term responses.

This approach also recognizes that study and remediation are often 
integrated activities.

Public involvement is enhanced by continuous and/or iterative participation.

While exact standards and remedies cannot be determined when the plan 
is first constructed, a vision - perhaps including an end date and end 
state - can be offered, with the recognition that it may be changed as 
the project moves forward.

The Plan can, when appropriate, encourage the use of innovative 
technologies by establishing performance goals instead of listing 
specific technologies. Performance goals not only include cleanup 
levels but other measurable objectives, dealing with a wide variety of 
factors ranging from limitations on emissions to noise restrictions to 
deadlines to local employment requirements.

 PATHWAY-BASED SCENARIOS

In our discussion with a state toxicologist, I learned that there is no 
single industrial scenario. Risk assessors view lumber yards 
differently from electronics plants, and both are different than airports.

Thinking back over my admittedly limited knowledge of the technical 
details of risk assessment, I recalled that there are at least three 
key factors that distinguish land use scenarios:

1) Receptors. We base risk analysis for residential scenarios on the 
presence of the most vulernable members of the population: children, 
the aging, and the sick, but we assume that they are rarely present at 
industrial properties.

2) Length of potential exposure. People typically spend less time on 
the job than some people spend at home.

3) Pathways. Kids and soccer goalies eat dirt.

In most cases, I would think that the variation in pathways is likely 
to make the greatest difference in actual exposure. There may be some 
chemicals - such as lead or nitrates in water - that cause orders of 
magnitude different health affects for different age groups, but 
generally the variation is not that great. No one is exposed more than 
168/hours per week.

I suggest, therefore, that any look-up tables that define default 
cleanup levels by land use scenario be DIRECTLY related to the presence 
of pathways. For example, we could develop levels for the following 
scenarios:

A. unrestricted. All pathways are considered open.

B. receptors may have direct contact with contaminated soil.

C. receptors may only ingest contamination from the soil.

D. receptors may only inhale contamination from the soil.

E. no possible contact with soil contamination.

By directly relating exposure to pathways, we reduce the number of 
assumptions that the risk assessor must make. More important, to earn 
use of levels B through E (that is, other than unrestricted use) a 
landowner/responsible party would have to guarantee closure of pathways 
for the life of the contamination.

By shifting from zoning categories (residential, industrial,etc.) we 
not only match potential exposures more directly to the land use, but 
we move away from the myth that somehow zoning restrictions are 
sufficient institutional controls.

I still remain skeptical that land use-based cleanup is correct policy. 
But that's the way it's done, so I want to see that it's done right.