COPA Comments on the
Overall Remediation Strategy
One of the opening statements of the Westinghouse sampling plan reads,
"The industry standard and USEPA presumptive remedy for remediation
of large municipal landfills with PCB or other hazardous contamination is
containment." This is a partial truth that could lead unsuspecting
readers to believe that containment is the only remedy that is expected,
or required, at Lemon Lane Landfill. "Containment" means that
the solid waste remains in its original location, but physical contact with
contaminants is restricted and groundwater contamination is prevented .
What this document does not convey to the reader is that government agencies
and parties responsible for the cleanup are expected to select a different
alternative at sites where substantial groundwater contamination cannot
be prevented, and where there is no evidence that groundwater contamination
will subside naturally within an acceptable time frame.
There are alternatives to containment at Lemon Lane Landfill, and they
must be explored. "Containment" at Lemon Lane Landfill cannot
be appreciably improved beyond the current situation: a cap with groundwater
and surface water sampling. This remedy has proven unsatisfactory. Widespread
contamination of sediments, groundwater and surface water has already occurred,
and appears to be worsening. Fish and wildlife impacts have been documented.
Even with removal of "hot spots", the abundance of PCBs in the
landfill suggest that PCB migration will continue indefinitely.
"Presumptive remedies" have been identified for a few types
of contaminated sites, including CERCLA municipal landfills, to expedite
the Superfund Rl/FS process. At these types of sites, certain remedies are
"presumed" to be appropriate unless site-specific conditions suggest
otherwise. In the case of municipal landfills, containment in place is assumed
to be adequately protective in most situations, and site characterization
data can be limited. However, EPA clearly recognizes the need for site-specific
variances from the presumptive remedy when, for example, the hydrogeology
at a site makes effective containment of PCBs impossible.
"Circumstances where a presumptive remedy may not be used include
unusual site soil characteristics or mixtures of contaminants not treated
by the remedy, demonstration of significant advantages of alternate (or
innovative) technologies over the presumptive remedies, or extraordinary
community and state concems... The presumptive remedy is simply an expedited
approval process, not the only technically feasible altemative." (US
DOE, Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, 1994)
Other EPA guidance material includes the expectation that government
agencies and parties responsible for cleanup will not select containment
in cases where it is clearly inappropriate. For example, the 1990 EPA document
titled, "Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB
Contamination" suggests that containment of landfills may be appropriate
for even highly contaminated waste, but it also recognizes the need to remove
even lower concentration PCB waste if containment is unreliable.
The identification and verification of alternative remedies for Lemon
Lane Landfill and other Bloomington PCB sites is specifically encouraged
by EPA. An EPA OSWER Policy Directive titled "Promotion of Innovative
Technologies in Waste Management Programs" (April 29, 1996) discourages
the elimination of innovative technologies because they require testing
to determine their applicability at a particular site. It encourages the
consideration and use of innovative treatment and characterization technologies
where they may have site-specific or program-wide benefits. Specific initiatives
to eliminate impediments, simplify permitting and authorization, and introduce
cost-sharing and risk-sharing are described in this document (attached).
Revision of the overall remedial strategy for Lemon Lane Landfill must
be made before the scope and methods of sampling activities can be established.
In the Spring of 1995, COPA presented reasons why the geology and groundwater
flow system near Lemon Lane Landfill make it an unacceptable candidate for
closure in place. Government parties to the CD responded by denying that
closure in place was an appropriate remedy for Lemon Lane Landfill, and
denying that they were supportive of this remedy. They failed, however,
to require Westinghouse to characterize the landfill so that appropriate
removal and treatment/disposal options could be examined.
EPA's "conceptual sampling plan" for Lemon Lane, released for
comment last year, amounted to limited sampling in search of "hot spots".
When the CIC and community members requested that more comprehensive site
characterization data be generated, this sampling plan was described as
being an important first step. The Westinghouse sampling plan currently
being circulated for approval by the CD parties is very similar to the EPA
"conceptual sampling plan", but EPA has lost significant ground
since last year. "Clean area" sampling has been eliminated, analyses
for dioxin and other contaminants has been removed, and the PCB action level
was increased.
The Westinghouse sampling plan should not be approved until it is part
of an overall remedial strategy that aims to provide acceptable protection
to human health and the environment. The current remedial strategy - containment
with hot spot removal - is unacceptable as presented. |
