Saving Superfund
Proposed changes to the Superfund
process based on the relative
successes and problems of Tar Creek
and other Superfund sites
Research Objectives

Review the process for site clean ups
established by CERCLA
 Analyze the actions taken at Tar Creek and
other Superfund sites for successes and
problems
 Recommend implementation of additional
procedures
Methods

Researched Tar Creek Superfund Site
 Gathered information on CERCLA
guidelines and procedures
 Researched other Superfund Sites that have
been successfully treated and deleted from
the NPL
Background Information
The Mining of the Tar Creek Area
Tar Creek Background
Information

Part of the Tri-State Mining District
– Kansas, Missouri
– All Superfund Sites

Lead, Zinc, and Cadmium
Effects of Mining

Open shafts
 Underground caverns
– Allowed to fill with water
– Minerals and metals leached from rock

Chat and tailings
– left in piles
– left in floatation pools
Effects of Mining

Water became contaminated
– Reddish color noticed

Chat removed from mining site and used
– Pavement
– Playground surfaces
– Parking lots
– Residential Driveways
EPA & DEQ Response
Timeline of Events: OU1

1983 - EPA names Tar Creek Superfund Site to
National Priorities List.
 1984 - EPA begins work on OU1
– Address surface water contamination from discharge of
mine water and threat of contamination to Roubidoux
Aquifer from opened abandoned wells.

1984-1986 - Plugged 83 abandoned wells, built
dikes, divert surface water around mines and
collapsed mine shafts.
Timeline of Events: OU2

1995 - IHS reports high blood lead levels in Indian
children
– 35% had elevated levels
– Countywide testing shows >30% had elevated levels

EPA finds tailings in residential properties
 1995-2003 - Soil samples collected, remediation
on properties carried out
– $100 million on over 2,000 locations

Reduced blood levels result
Timeline of Events: OU3

1989-1999 - Quapaw Tribe requests EPA
investigate the abandoned Eagle Picher
Industries mining lab.
– 120 deteriorating containers of lead recovery
chemicals found
– Containers disposed of
– Cost $55,000
Timeline of Events: OU4

Recent - EPA and US Department of Justice
begin remedial investigation and feasibility
study (2000)
– With Department of Interior, Blue Ter, and
Gold Fields
– 1st action to identify nature and extent of
contamination and evaluate options for clean up
Overview of the Superfund
Process
The Superfund Process
Site
Discovery
Operation &
Maintenance
NPL
Deletion
Preliminary
Assessment /
Site Inspection
Hazard
Ranking &
NPL
Remedial
Action
Remedial
Design
Remedial
Investigation &
Feasibility Study
Select
Remedy
The Superfund Process

Enforcement and Public Participation occur
throughout the process
 Removal and Remedial Action occur throughout
process as necessary
– Removal action: removing substances, excavating
contaminated soil, installing security measures,
providing alternate drinking water
– Remedial action: study, design, constructing long term
actions for permanent remedy. Include constructing
underground walls to control groundwater movement,
incinerating waste, applying bioremediation.
General Observations

Superfund process is not rigid
– Allows for flexibility for multiple problems
– Allows for some important aspects to be
overlooked
Successful Programs
Implemented at Tar Creek
Community Education
Program

EPA/DEQ began campaign to inform
residents of hazards
– Hand Washing
– No swimming and or playing in creek
– No drinking from wells/natural sources until
water supply was tested

Brought in alternate water supply for testing
period (Removal Action)
Community Education
Program

Effects
– Blood lead levels decreased
– Potentially hazardous activities decreased or
stopped, lowering risk of exposure

Problems
– Started late into the process
Suggestion

A Community Education Program should be
one of the firsts steps of a Superfund
Process
 Community has a right to be informed of
what is going on, and educated in how to
minimize effect, as soon as potential
problems are identified
Chat Removal

Chat coverings were removed and replaced
 Chat piles shrank as chat was sold for use in
cement and concrete
 Effects
– Reduced Blood Lead Levels
– Removing chat will improve groundwater quality
– Cannot be used by people for recreation, and wind will
not lead to further contamination
Chat Removal - Problems

Chat Removal Process did not start until
1995
– Cherokee Creek, KS

Quapaw have only recently been allowed to
sell chat
 Though piles are shrinking, they still exist
First Suggestion

When a site is discovered, air, wind, soil,
and human blood level testing should be
performed at the outset
 Information should be collected to check for
exportation of hazardous materials
Second Suggestion

“Temporary Cover” of areas that are
contaminated and cannot be removed
– Due to size or governmental issues
– Temporary seepage limited, and materials used
for cover can be re-used to cap the area under
the piles

Silver Bow Creek, Chisman Creek, Ohio
River park
Negative Aspects of the
Processes Used at Tar Creek
and Superfund Policy
State Intervention

Is usually a beneficial aspect for any
Superfund Site
 It started years after problem was identified
– Usually due to lack of progress
– Eventually occurs at sites where a PRP is not
found
– Improves funding and public awareness
Suggestions

Once a site is listed on the NPL, bring the
issue to State Legislature
 Begin public awareness and funding drive
immediately
 States should adopt emergency funding
measures in case of a hazardous release
– Currently 431 schemes in 44 states, with $3.2
billion revenue
Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study

RI/FS currently has three goals
– Reduce Toxicity
– Reduce Mobility
– Reduce Volume

Aims to control acute threats immediately
RI/FS Problems

Sometimes focuses on fixing the problem,
rather than preventing the problem from
increasing or spreading
 Does not have a policy outline for chronic
threats
Suggestions

Divide RI/FS into two parts
– One group focuses on treating problems that
exist
– Second group focuses on preventing problem
from spreading or increasing

Implement a policy for treating chronic
threats, based on how long the population
has already been exposed
Communication and Division
Between Regions

EPA is divided into several regions
– Oklahoma is in a separate region than Missouri
and Kansas
– Separate districts treating the same problem in
different ways
– Cherokee Creek – removed contaminated soil
first
Resulting Problems

A beneficial action may be taken in one
area, but not be considered in another area
with the same problem
 Funding for research and remediation is
split among parties, becoming less effective
 Several completely different solutions may
be implemented partially to treat one
problem
Suggestions

When a problem affects multiple regions,
the regions involved should try to cooperate
as a group, and focus on the entire problem
 States should try to collaborate in funding
and researching solutions
 When an action is taken in one area, and
proven beneficial, other states and regions
with similar problems should be alerted
Summary

Superfund does not have a rigid structure
– Good for flexibility
– Could result in important aspects being
overlooked

Several additional measures could be
implemented to the Superfund Process to
increase effectiveness in preserving human
health and treating pollution
Summary of Proposed
Suggestions

Community Education Programs should be
implemented once a site is placed on the
NPL
 When contamination is noticed in one
medium, air, soil, water, and human
exposure levels should be investigated
immediately to determine cross
contamination
Summary of Proposed
Suggestions

Extent of removal of hazardous materials
should be investigated
 Contaminants that will take time to remove
due to size or restrictions should be treated
with a temporary cover systems
 State legislatures should be notified of areas
on the NPL
Summary of Proposed
Suggestions

States should begin raising funds and
notifying public immediately, regardless of
presence of PRP
 Divide RI/FS into two parts, one focusing
on treatment, the other on prevention of
further contamination
 Construct a policy for treating chronic
threats
Summary of Proposed
Suggestions

Superfund sites with similar problems
should collaborate to research effective
treatments, raise funds, and educate the
public
 Communication between similar or related
sites should be increased
Conclusion

Several new steps could be added to the Superfund
Process to increase the program effectiveness
 Superfund sites should be constantly reviewed in
order to determine new beneficial measures that
could be added to the Superfund treatment process
 Always treat Superfund as a work in progress
References










Ranking Hazardous Waste Sites National Resource Council
Beyond Superfailure D. Mazmanian and D. Morell
Rethinking Superfund A.J. Obadal et al, NLCPI
Cleaning Up the Mess T. Church and R. Nakamura
Fixing Superfund Lloyd S. Dixon
An Analysis of State superfund Programs:50 State Study, 1990 Update EPA
September 1990
Private sector Cleanup Expenditures and Transaction Costs at 18 Superfund
Sites L. Dixon, D. Drezner, J. Hammitt
Superfund Program Implementation Manual, FY 1993 EPA 1993
The Superfund Program: 10 Years of Progress EPA 1991
Environmental Protection at the State Level E. J Ringquist
Special Thanks

Dr. Deborah Dalton
 Dr. Bob Nairn
 Judy Duncan
 Mary Ellen Turris
Questions?