{"id":35135,"date":"2024-04-23T00:01:07","date_gmt":"2024-04-23T04:01:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=35135"},"modified":"2024-04-23T06:42:00","modified_gmt":"2024-04-23T10:42:00","slug":"epa-inspector-general-report-cites-agency-failures-in-cleanup-of-wood-preservatives-at-superfund-site","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2024\/04\/epa-inspector-general-report-cites-agency-failures-in-cleanup-of-wood-preservatives-at-superfund-site\/","title":{"rendered":"EPA Inspector General Report Cites Agency Failures in Cleanup of Wood Preservatives at Superfund Site"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, April 23, 2024) The Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report<\/a> last week finding that the agency has failed to establish \u201cinstitutional controls\u201d at the American Creosote Works Superfund Site in Pensacola, Florida, leading to continuous groundwater and soil contamination that \u201cleav[es] the public at risk of exposure.\u201d The 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) established the Superfund program, codified under 42 U.S.C. Chapter 103<\/a>, to clean up contaminated sites with tax money from polluting industries.<\/p>\n

The OIG made eight recommendations for the regional EPA administrator and one for the assistant administrator \u201cfor Land and Emergency Management to improve the institutional controls at American Creosote Works Superfund Site.\u201d There are three main determinations found in the results section of the OIG report: first, the institutional controls to prevent potential exposure were either \u201cinsufficient or unimplemented;\u201d second, the EPA missed its mark in communicating associated risks to the public in areas surrounding this Superfund site; and third, the full administrative record for this site was not available at the time of inspection. This report builds on what advocates argue is the sustained legacy of EPA inaction and failure to protect public health and enforce environmental protections, particularly on the issue of wood preservatives laced with toxic chemicals.<\/p>\n

Each determination breaks down as follows: First, the OIG defines institutional controls as \u201cadministrative and legal tools that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and protect the integrity of the engineered remedy by limiting land or resource use and guiding human behavior.\u201d EPA failed to achieve the basic definition of institutional controls when it permitted the use of groundwater through the installation of new wells on some nearby private land parcels and \u201cdid not conduct well surveys between 2002 and 2013.\u201d When EPA did conduct surveys, \u201conly 61 percent of the properties listed inside the groundwater delineation area\u201d were included despite the remaining residents living in areas of potential contamination. Regarding information sharing on potential exposure via soil contamination, \u201cEPA relied on the community to distribute information and the remedial project manager\u2019s verbal direction to private property owners to guide the owners\u2019 land-use choices,\u201d which is problematic given the turnover of private land over the years can lead to construction that dredges up contaminated soil and leads to potential increased levels of exposure. Compounding the lack of information sharing and administrative hiccups, there was also missing required documents (per CERCLA regulations) between EPA and local\/state stakeholders including a memorandum of understanding between EPA and Northwest Florida Water Management District regarding protocols around denying well drilling permits within the zone of potential contamination. Nor was there proof of the creation of an Institutional Control Implementation Assurance Plan for the Superfund site that is designed to establish the parameters and monitoring mechanisms for the institutional controls in question.<\/p>\n

Second, EPA failed to adequately and consistently keep the public informed of the associated hazards the Superfund site posed for nearby community members. For example, \u201cEPA\u2019s GIS databse file for the ACW Superfund site does not accurately represent the extent of the site contamination\u201d in terms of contamination spillover beyond the geographical boundaries of the site, which OIG predicts could \u201cmislead interested parties, such as parcel owners, real estate agents, and contractors…to believe that there is no soil contamination\u201d outside of the old site.<\/p>\n

Third, the report cites EPA\u2019s failure to maintain a complete copy of the site\u2019s administrative record near or at the site for public access per CERCLA regulations. Both in the office and on the website page, there was a lack of complete, relevant documentation. On the website, as of 2023, \u201cThe webpage did contain an electronic repository of documents under the \u2018Reports and Documents\u2019 section. However, collectively these documents also do not compose a complete administrative record because they do not include all the Records of Decision or the assessments, investigations, or feasibility studies on which the EPA based its remedial decisions. The EPA\u2019s ACW webpage also did not include an index, and the electronic repository does not include documents demonstrating public involvement in the remedial decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n

The report outlines that, out of the nine total recommendations, there are still three left unresolved due to disagreement with the EPA Region 4 lead as signaled in the previous paragraph. Recommendations 3, 4, and 6 <\/strong>unpack how to solve the listed problems above.<\/p>\n