1. Principles of Hazardous Waste Site Ranking September 27, 2001 Stephen M. Caldwell Deputy Director, State and Tribal Programs and Site Identification Center Office of Emergency and Remedial Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

2. 8/3//01 AgendaAgenda Hazardous Waste Site Ranking Public Participation in the Decision-Making Process Questions and Answers

3. 8/3//01 Why Do We Rank Sites? Setting Priorities The problems exceed our resources The US inventory is > 43,000 sites Strategic goal: worst sites first

4. 8/3//01 Why Do We Rank Sites? Setting Priorities Discovery and Inventory Preliminary Assessment No Action/ Low Priority Sampling/ Analysis Site Ranking Priorities List Investigation/ Risk Assessment Engineering Options Clean-Up

5. 8/3//01 Site Ranking: Science and Policy Worst is a value judgment Values represented in the US Hazard Ranking System - Human Health (cancer and non-cancer effects - Resources (drinking water, fisheries, etc) - Sensitive Environments (national parks, habitats for the endangered species, etc.

6. 8/3//01 Site Ranking: Science and Policy (continued) Science and policy: “worst” is a policy decision 1,000 people, 10 -4 cancer risk ( 0.1cancer case) 100,000 people, 10 -5 cancer risk ( 1 cancer case) 1,000,000 people, 10 -6 cancer risk ( 1 cancer case) Simplifying assumptions/policy decisions - All cancers are equal - 10 -6 cancer risk = reference close

7. 8/3//01 Identifying Hazardous Waste Problems Question #1: Is a hazardous waste present? Question #2: Is it mobile? Question #3: Is there a receptor?

8. 8/3//01 How to Rank Hazardous Waste Sites Identify risk and assign value Identify required information –Toxicity, quantity, bioaccumulation –mobility –Receptors ( people, environments, resources) Identify solution(s)

9. 8/3//01 Identifying the Risks Is there a human health risk? Is the environment threatened? Is the socio-economic stability of the area threatened?

10. 8/3//01 Perform TRIAGE/Assign Value Is there an immediate health risk? Is there long-term risk? Are the risks acceptable? What is the uncertainty?

11. 8/3//01 Assigning a Value Determine what constitutes a risk value Consider interrelationships among values Minimize influence of political conditions or public opinion

12. 8/3//01 Site Assessment Step #1: Characterize the hazardous wastes Step #2: Consider routes of migration Step #3: Evaluate the receptors

13. 8/3//01 Characterize the Waste Identify the waste present Confirm the source Estimate quantities Evaluate chemical properties –mobility –persistence –toxicity –biocentration continued...

14. 8/3//01 Routes of Migration Groundwater Surface water Air Direct contact/Soil ingestion

15. 8/3//01 depth to groundwater infiltration type soil type precipitation type geology distance to surface water flood frequency drainage areaduration of release moisture type of soils access to site physical properties of waste depth of wastes climate proximity of receptors Direct contact XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX X X X Example: Criteria Matrix Groundwater Surface water Air

16. 8/3//01 Other Factors That May Influence Site Ranking Costs of cleanup Political factors Public opinion Potential for reuse

17. 8/3//01 Basic Program Elements for Program Site Ranking Inventory Review available information Sampling and analysis Document the findings

18. 8/3//01 InventoryInventory Regulatory program records Citizen complaints Industry sectors Remote sensing (e.g., aerial photography)

19. 8/3//01 Preliminary Assessment Review Available Information Contact local authorities Obtain historical information Evaluate current conditions Consider outside influences Evaluate reliability and quality of existing data Identify missing information Visually inspect the site

20. 8/3//01 Sampling Develop a cost-effective strategy –minimum sampling needed to obtain results –location of samples –type of samples –sampling procedures and on-site equipment Consider alternative strategies –sample existing wells –collect wipe samples –air monitoring

21. 8/3//01 Field-Portable Technology Options for Sampling Description Emits pulses of electromagnetic energy into the ground Measures reflection and refraction by subsurface layers and other features Identifies buried objects; for example, unexploded ordnance Chemical-based indicator Detects and quantifies individual, or classes of compounds Identifies explosives, chlorine, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Provides real-time measurements of concentrations of mercury in the air Detects and quantifies individual metals or groups of metals, and lead paint Identifies and quantifies VOCs, SVOCs, dioxins, furans, and pesticides Technology Ground- Penetrating Radar Colorimetric Detector Tube Mercury Vapor Analyzer X-ray Fluorescence Analyzer Portable Gas Chromatography

22. 8/3//01 Document the Findings Create a well-documented report –Identify data collection procedures –Report significant findings that resulted in ranking decision Establish credibility of decision-makers

23. 8/3//01 Establish a Consistent Reporting System Benefits –Defines the criteria by which sites will be evaluated –Facilitates the collection of information –Promotes a consistent approach for all types of sites to answer the 3 basic questions: Is there a hazardous waste? Is it mobile? Is there a receptor?

24. 8/3//01 Your Program Must Fit Your Country’s Situation Cultural values Societal relationships Resources and Economy

25. 8/3//01 Hazardous Site Ranking (Summary) Establishes a consistent, defensible program for protecting human health and economic security: –Identifies immediate and potential threats to human health and the environment –Identifies threats to economic security –Helps to set priorities and allocate resources to those problems which need attention first continued...

26. 8/3//01 Hazardous Site Ranking (Summary) Promotes the effective use of limited resources and expertise Ensures accountability and consistency nationally and internationally Encourages public involvement and support in identifying and responding to environmental problems

27. 8/3//01 Public Participation in the U.S. U.S. law requires that the public: –be informed of planned and on-going activities –provided opportunity to comment on and contribute to technical decisions made by EPA and other government agencies Public participation occurs throughout the process, from site discovery through cleanup

28. 8/3//01 Public Participation Involve public in the decision-making process -- give them a sense of ownership Educate public about hazardous waste sites and the ranking program Address public concerns to alleviate fears about hazardous waste Demonstrate government responsiveness and accountability

29. 8/3//01 Why Involve the Public? The public will gain understanding of issues and goals of the site ranking program Public funds are used to clean up sites Encourages political support Decisions made are defensible Promotes economic security –confidence in the environment –confidence in the manufactured products of that environment

30. 8/3//01 How to Involve the Public Meet informally with residents, special interest groups, and industry Distribute information about the program Make information available for review and comment at publicly-accessible locations Inform public of government’s responses to comments

31. 8/3//01 Benefits of Public Participation Promotes public support of the program –Public is informed of the facts, rather than developing uninformed opinions –Reduces conflict among government and public Encourages a rational, not emotional, reaction to environmental concerns

32. 8/3//01 ConclusionConclusion A defined, defensible program, accepted by government and the public, is necessary –to ensure environmental integrity –to retain control of environmental programs A good environment program makes economic good sense Defensible site ranking program has international benefits