Containment Zone Policy & Natural Attenuation

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

BRUCE,

THANKS FOR YOUR NOTE. IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE LOOKED AT THE
(CALIFORNIA STATE WATER QUALITY CONTROL BAORD) CONTAINMENT ZONE POLICY,
SO I'M HALF SURE OF SOME OF MY ANSWERS BELOW.

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:53:37 -0700
From: Bruce Klafter <bklafter@orrick.com>
To: cpro-brownfields@igc.org
Subject: National Stakeholders' Forum on MNA Report -Reply

Thanks for the thorough report, I'm sorry I was unable to
attend the Forum.

I'm curious whether anyone suggested that the SWRCB's
Containment Zone (CZ)Policy might be a viable model. CZ
requires a showing before monitored natural attentuation is
permitted: either that source removal has been
accomplished and cleanup has reached asymptotic levels
or that a cleanup is impracticable or that the "burden" of
cleanup is disproportionate" to the benefits.

AS I RECALL, THE CONTAINMENT ZONE POLICY WAS BEING USED PRIMARILY TO
DEAL WITH GASOLINE (BENZENE) PLUMES. ITS USE DROPPED OFF AS MTBE
CONTAMINATION WAS IDENTIFIED IN A LARGE NUMBER OF THOSE PLUMES. I ALSO
THINK THE IMPLEMENTATION AMONG THE NINE WATER BOARD FIEFDOMS WAS UNEVEN.

In addition, the designation of CZ requires the discharger to
pay a "mitigation" fee. The amount of the fee may be as
high as 10% of the avoided cleanup costs (although only a
few of these fees have actually been imposed to date).

This seems like a model that might allow community groups
to get comfortable with natural attenuation (or at least more
so).

IN AN AREA LIKE SILICON VALLEY, WHERE I LIVE, THE CONTAINMENT ZONE
POLICY IS PROBABLY ADEQUATE BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY IS EMPOWERED. THAT IS,
WE'RE IN A POSITION TO QUESTION THE TECHNICAL BASIS OF UNSUITABLE
NATURAL ATTENUATION PROPOSALS. HOWEVER, EPA'S DRAFT POLICY SEEMS
STRONGER IN THAT IT BETTER SPECIFIES THE TECHNICAL HOOPS THAT A
RESPONSIBLE PARTY MUST JUMP THROUGH TO WIN APPROVAL, PARTICULARLY FOR
MORE COMPLEX SITES WITH VOC GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION.

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, HOWEVER, ALL OF THESE POLICIES ARE WEAK BECAUSE
THEY DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE LONG-TERM WEAKNESSES OF INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS. THAT IS, ANY REMEDY THAT LEAVES CONTAMINATION IN PLACE BEGS
FOR AN AGENCY OR ENTITY TO ENSURE THAT IT NEVER, EVER PRESENTS A HAZARD
(AT REGULATORILY SIGNIFICANT LEVELS) TO THE PUBLIC (OR ECOLOGICAL
RECEPTORS).

P.S. Pump and treat is becoming a disfavored remedy not
just because of the excessive cost; it just doesn't work in
many cases because of DNAPLs or other problems. DOD
or other dischargers shouldn't be required to "buy" a
community's trust by installing a system that's ultimately
ineffectual. The dollars should be spent more
constructively.

I AGREE THAT PUMP-AND-TREAT IS NOT LIKELY TO REDUCE CONTAMINANT MASS SO
THAT GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION THROUGHOUT A PLUME FALLS BELOW REGULATORY
LEVELS. HOWEVER, IT CAN EFFECTIVELY CONTAIN A PLUME. PROPERLY LOCATED,
EXTRACTION CAN REMOVE ENOUGH CONTAMINANT MASS SO NATURAL ATTENUATION CAN
COMPLETE THE JOB.

WITH ENHANCEMENTS, EXTRACTION SYSTEMS CAN REMOVE SOME OF THE DNAPLS. MY
CONCERN IS THAT TOO MANY POLLUTERS ARE BEING ALLOWED TO TURN OFF
PUMP-AND-TREAT SYSTEMS WITHOUT COMING UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE. THIS
REDUCES THE INCENTIVE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES. ALSO, THE
REMEDY SELECTION AND LONG-TERM REVIEW PROCESSES DO NOT ENCOURAGE THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW, ACTIVE REMEDIES AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.

I THINK MOST COMMUNITIES WOULD DEFINE "DOING SOMETHING" AS BROADER THAN
PUMP AND TREAT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE REDUCTIVE DEHALOGENATION OF TCE
FORMS VINYL CHLORIDE, THE INJECTION OF OXYGEN TO COMPLETE THE BREAKDOWN
PROCESS MAKES SENSE (IF YOU CAN GET THE OXYGEN TO THE VINYL CHLORIDE).

Thanks again for the report.

FINALLY, THE KEY REQUIREMENT OF ANY NATURAL ATTENUATION POLICY IS THAT
THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY MUST PROVE THAT THE REMEDY HAS LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS, NOT JUST THAT OTHER ALTERNATIVES DON'T.

LENNY

Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/968-1126
lsiegel@cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org