National Stakeholders' Forum on MNA Report

[Center for Public Environmental Oversight <cpeo@cpeo.org>]

On August 31-September 1, CPEO, with financial support from the Air Force and
other agencies, conducted the National Stakeholders' Forum on Monitored
Natural Attenuation. We believe the event was extremely successful, and once
again we would like to express our appreciation not only to the co-sponsors,
but to the speakers and other participants. The forum report follows. The
formatted version of this report, and CPEO fact sheets on natural attenuation
are available online at: http://www.cpeo.org/pubs.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

 Report of the National Stakeholders' Forum on
 Monitored Natural Attenuation
 Center for Public Environmental Oversight
 San Francisco Urban Institute, San Francisco State University

 October, 1998

The National Stakeholders' Forum on Monitored Natural
Attenuation, held near San Francisco August 31 and September 1,
1998, brought together nearly 250 scientists, activists, and
government officials. Organized by the Center for Public
Environmental Oversight (CPEO), with sponsorship from the Air
Force, the Navy, U.S. EPA, and the Department of Energy, the
Forum offered a balanced series of informative presentations on
natural attenuation as a cleanup strategy, and it provided the
public stakeholder participants with perhaps their only
opportunity to influence national policy on natural attenuation.

The racially diverse community participants, many of whom live
near federal facilities, represented communities from throughout
the U.S. Most indicated their appreciation for the opportunity
to gain a wider understanding of the science and policy of
natural attenuation, as well as the chance to network with
people from other areas of the country with similar problems.
Participants from all constituencies recognized the value of the
Forum's unique format: Large numbers of people representing
federal responsible parties, regulators, consultants, academia,
and the public nationally were able to exchange their views
openly and respectfully.

To guide national policy development, organizers of the Forum
laid out four questions for participants:

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of monitored
 natural attenuation as a remedy?

2. When and where is monitored natural attenuation
 appropriate?

3. How does one predict and verify the effectiveness of
 natural attenuation?

4. What should be done if natural attenuation doesn't work as
 anticipated?

Forum planners did not seek consensus. There was no formal
voting. Rather, the Forum provided opportunities for those
present to express themselves, in breakout groups as well as
plenary sessions, and CPEO recorded those points of view.

Panelists consisted of community activists, regulators,
academics, and scientists in the employ of the Departments of
Energy and Defense. They represented differing points of view,
but each brought his or her own expertise to the podium.
Community representatives, for example, not only stressed the
importance of community concerns, but they showed how grassroots
activists could, over time, achieve a serious level of technical
competence.

Other speakers stressed the importance of factoring in all
scientific aspects when considering natural attenuation as a
remedy. They described how cleanup teams study contamination in
the subsurface environment, pointing out how difficult it is to
know exactly what's going on underground. Speakers agreed that
natural attenuation, to some degree, always occurs at
contamination sites. While project scientists must estimate the
extent of natural attenuation processes, the question for
decision-makers is whether such processes are sufficient to
achieve cleanup goals. Finally, panelists explored the
terminology used to describe natural processes. Though some
found the term "natural attenuation" acceptable, others felt it
confused degradation with other natural paths to reduce
contaminant concentration.

Forum participants offered a wide range of comments on Monitored
Natural Attenuation in general and specifically on EPA's interim
policy, but the public stakeholders who spoke out tended to
agree on key issues. Below is CPEO's summary of those comments.

The Importance of Trust

Public participants indicated widespread suspicion of Monitored
Natural Attenuation as a cleanup strategy, but they did not
challenge the science presented by its proponents. In fact, at
first Forum organizers were frustrated by comments that centered
on what seemed to be other issues, such as risk assessment,
institutional controls, and the general absence of trust for
government officials, particularly those working for agencies,
such as the Departments of Defense and Energy, which have large
contamination problems.

In reviewing the Forum record, however, that response stands out
as the key lesson of the event: Decision-makers who believe
monitored natural attenuation is the best remedial response at a
site must win the trust of the public long before they propose
it as a remedy.

Many traditional remedial strategies, such as "dig and haul" or
"pump and treat," are superficially simple. Most people
understand the basic concepts. They can see whether it's
happening. The case for monitored natural attenuation, on the
other hand, relies upon complex analysis before and after the
fact. Before remedy selection, site characterization must show
that natural attenuation is likely to achieve remedial
objectives. Once natural attenuation is endorsed, long-term
monitoring must continue until those objectives are reached.
Both characterization and monitoring depend upon multiple lines
of evidence, most of which involve variables that are difficult,
at best, for the average person to understand.

Furthermore, at least one public participant pointed out that in
practice decision-makers often rely upon only two lines of
evidence, but use the term multiple to reinforce the perceived
certainty that natural attenuation is proceeding with enough
strength, speed, and stamina to complete the job.

Typically, when natural attenuation is under consideration,
experts working for the responsible party present charts,
graphs, and arguments designed to show that Monitored Natural
Attenuation will achieve comparable results to other, more
expensive remedial options. In fact, at the forum one Air Force
scientist presented a graph showing that the rate of contaminant
mass reduction in one major plume using natural attenuation
wasn't much different than the estimated rate using conventional
remedies. That graph demonstrated, he suggested, that Monitored
Natural Attenuation was worth considering at that site.

However, from the public stakeholders' point of view, the only
sure thing in the presentation was that natural attenuation
would save the polluter - in this case the Air Force - a great
deal of money. They had no way to independently test the Air
Force's projection. And in fact, many were aware that even in
the best of situations the Air Force comparison was fraught with
technical uncertainty. As one speaker pointed out, "It's dark
down there." That is, it's difficult to measure what's going on
throughout the subsurface environment. Finally, they had no way
to know whether there might be a third approach, with a better
graph, waiting in the wings.

If, as many of the Forum participants indicated, people are
already mistrustful of responsible parties - and often
regulators - around issues they better understand, such as land
use and health, they are unlikely to believe the promises of
even the most knowledgeable, articulate experts. Natural
attenuation is suspect, therefore, wherever the rest of the
restoration program is suspect. It takes more than pretty
pictures or sound science to win support where there is little
trust.

On the other hand, at those facilities where the public believes
that officials are both honest and willing to shape their
decisions to meet public concerns, the public appears willing to
evaluate the lines of evidence for natural attenuation, or any
other remedy, on their merits.

Not surprisingly, public representatives at the forum
underscored the importance of public participation in the
screening and selection of remedial alternatives. The people who
design and approve a natural attenuation strategy for a
groundwater plume will be long gone by the date at which
remedial objectives are expected to be reached, but most of the
residents or their descendants will still have to live with the
results. Public stakeholders also bring to the table local
expertise and frequently an institutional memory that the
scientific or regulatory experts lack. However, seeking public
approval may present a "Catch 22" for the proponents of
monitored natural attenuation. To win endorsement, they must
increase the possibility of rejection.

To support such public participation, attendees called for a
printed primer and more events like the Forum, to discuss the
science and implications of natural attenuation. Though many of
the participants said that they valued the technical
presentations, some expressed frustration that speakers at the
Forum were too technical, hard to follow, and difficult to
understand.

Relationship to Other Remedies

Monitored natural attenuation seemed to be most acceptable to
public stakeholders when regarded as just another tool in the
remediation toolbox. As suggested in EPA's policy, natural
attenuation may complement other remedies.

One participant, for example, argued that "enhanced" natural
attenuation was more acceptable than the other kind, although he
didn't provide a sharp line distinguishing the two. While some
other participants, in their written comments, complained that
too many people were focusing on the semantics of the term
"monitored natural attenuation," it's clear that "natural
attenuation" still carries with it the baggage with which it was
first widely publicized, as a "do-nothing" remedy.

Another stakeholder proposed that monitored natural attenuation
be approved as a remedy only in conjunction with other remedies,
though she allowed that there might be exceptions. While some
argued that other remedies were usually required for technical
reasons, others echoed the perceptual importance of visibly
"doing something" at a site. In other words, the presence of a
visible physical or engineered remedy at a site demonstrates
that action is actually being taken.

In particular, numerous people supported source removal as
essential for natural attenuation to work. However, at the Forum
this was not up for debate. All of the proponents of natural
attenuation made the case for source removal. No one - as others
have elsewhere - suggested letting natural processes deal with
free product contaminants.

A number of speakers challenged the Defense Department's
perceived policy of always considering monitored natural
attenuation as a possible remedy for groundwater contamination.
While an Air Force spokesman said that current guidance simply
required that site characterization efforts collect the data
necessary to evaluate the extent of natural attenuation, the
critics felt that natural attenuation was almost a presumptive
remedy, that budgets would be built and characterization would
be biased on the assumption that natural attenuation was a
front-running option. They argued that natural attenuation
should be on a equal footing with other approaches.

Some participants expressed concern that reliance upon natural
attenuation would undermine the development and use of
innovative alternatives. In a site-specific evaluation of
alternatives, monitored natural attenuation might look like it
better satisfies remediation criteria - such as the nine
criteria of the National Contingency Plan - than pump-and-treat,
but there may be other, less well known options. A Cape Cod
participant explained that residents in one neighborhood didn't
want intrusive extraction systems in their yards, so they tended
to support monitored natural attenuation as the local remedy.
They were unaware of other options, such as horizontal wells,
that might meet their needs while accelerating the removal of
contaminants.

Some speakers raised the fear that natural attenuation might be
approved at some sites now, because better alternatives are not
yet proven. Then, when new technologies emerge that better
satisfy remediation criteria, it's unlikely that the remedy will
be reopened, even at five-year review. They asked: If monitored
natural attenuation is approved as the best of a collection of
uninspiring alternatives at a large number of sites, what
incentive is there for anyone to invent better approaches? If
new alternatives are developed, will there be any incentive to
employ a new remedy at a monitored natural attenuation site?

At least, EPA's policy discusses the need for contingency
remedies should monitoring demonstrate that natural attenuation
is not working as expected. Participants liked that idea, but
they showed concern that monitoring might not be good enough or
soon enough to flag problems before they get out of hand.
Because natural attenuation is frequently much less costly than
other approaches, they expressed concern that budgets built on
the assumption that natural attenuation will do the job may
actually lock it in as a remedy, even when it doesn't work. One
participant suggested a performance bond that would guarantee
that money is available should it be necessary to call upon
contingency remedies.

Destructive vs. Non-Destructive Remedies

Public stakeholders expressed strong preference for degradation
as opposed to other forms of natural attenuation, such as
dilution, dispersion, and volatilization. Many believed the non-
destructive forms of attenuation should not be acceptable, and
one tried to pin that down by asking what share of attenuation
should be attributable to degradation for it to be considered
the principal process. Another asked that the record of decision
for each site specify the dominant attenuation process
anticipated there.

Similarly, some participants were uncomfortable with the goal of
"plume stabilization," considering it just another form of
containment. They felt that treatment or removal, as currently
required by regulations, was more desirable.

As a result of these preferences, some participants appeared
more willing to accept monitored natural attenuation at
petroleum sites, where degradation of the principal contaminants
is more widespread and better documented, than at sites with
volatile organic compounds. Few responded to the Department of
Energy's description of the natural attenuation of inorganic
substances - it was too new and too different. Those who did
respond thought that metals should be dealt with in a separate
policy, since degradation does not occur (except with
radionuclides).

No matter what the principal contaminant, participants were
concerned that remedies address all contaminants - such as MTBE
(methyl tertiary butyl ether) in gasoline or whatever sits in a
landfill - and that the persistent formation of toxic breakdown
products, such as vinyl chloride, was an unacceptable result.

Land Use

Finally, a number of participants - particularly from
communities with closed and closing military bases - expressed
concern that natural attenuation, as a slow, uncertain remedy,
could delay the transfer and/or reuse of contaminated
properties. While long-term pump-and-treat as a groundwater
remedy may be essentially as cumbersome as natural attenuation,
"dig-and-haul" is a much faster way to deal with soils. And
sometimes pump-and-treat can reduce or limit the size of a
plume, making it easier to reuse or transfer property which does
not lie over the contamination, even if the achievement of
cleanup objectives remains a long way off. Some noted that any
step in the remedial process that delays unrestricted use of
property represents a real or potential economic loss to the
community or property owner receiving the property.

Several participants felt the land and water use control as a
component of remedial action is a significant area with many
unresolved issues. They noted that the Defense Department, as
evidenced by discussions at the most recent meeting of the
Defense Environmental Response Task Force, is just beginning to
grapple with complex issues surrounding institutional controls.
Since monitored natural attenuation often depends upon the
implementation of land and water use restrictions, participants
from various constituencies urged the organization of a similar
forum to discuss institutional controls.

Conclusion

On the whole, forum participants recognized that the adoption of
monitored natural attenuation often requires more scientific
review than conventional, engineered remedies. They expressed
concern, however, that the open discussion of natural
attenuation does not begin early enough in the remediation
decision-making process. Many also felt that natural
attenuation, as it is currently being defined, does not
accurately depict the remedial strategy. For the most part,
public stakeholders are willing to accept uncertainty when
reviewing proposed remedies, but they are much less open to
unconventional or complex remedies when they mistrust decision-
makers.

That is, the uncertainty and technical complexity surrounding
monitored natural attenuation magnify the mistrust found at many
major contamination sites. To compensate for that uncertainty,
the public wants contingency plans in place should monitored
natural attenuation not perform as advertised. Community members
want a clear mechanism for revisiting remedies if better
alternatives are developed.

Researchers at the forum may have been disappointed that public
participants chose not to focus on the scientific questions to
which they devote their professional lives. They brought
questions of their own to the table, instead. Until communities,
responsible parties, and regulators better address the causes
and consequences of mistrust, then proposals to rely upon
monitored natural attenuation to address complex or significant
contamination sites will be greeted, more often than not, with
skepticism.