Re: Containment Zone Policy & Natural Attenuation

[Peter Strauss <pstrauss@igc.org>]

Bruce,

While you point out some of the more favorable aspects of the
containment zone policy (not to be confused with natural attenuation),
it does have many problems.

First of all, the policy as I understand it, requires that plumes be
contained. I expect that many future applications of the policy will
require some measure of pumping to halt migration of a plume past an
artificial boundary. Second, it places a heavy emphasis on benefit/cost
analysis. In my opinion this analysis has been abused in the past and
will be abused in the future. Regulators would be talking about the
discount rate rather than how to effectively clean up. The policy as I
have read it does not lay out sufficient guidelines for the types of
assumptions that would go into this analysis. Third, in California we
have a state law and state regulations that protect "potential drinking
water supplies". In my opinion, implementation of this policy would
contravene this protection.

If you have had experience with implementation of the CZ policy, I would
be interested in hearing about it.

Peter Strauss

Lenny Siegel wrote:
>
> 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