Should the City Be Lead Agency at Superfund Sites? One City's Experience
| Jurisdiction | United States,Federal |
| Citation | Vol. 11 No. 4 Pg. 18 |
| Pages | 18 |
| Publication year | 1998 |
H. Craig Hall.
INTRODUCTION
The community that I represent is not atypical from those that you represent: It was settled in the late 1800's. As it developed, thirteen smelters were built and operated within boundaries. These smelters generally were in operation from 1900 through the end of World War II. American Smelting and Refining Company ("ASARCO"), the largest of these smelters, was located exactly in the center of the city. ASARCO was involved in the smelting, refining, and manufacturing of arsenic, lead, and related products. In 1949 operations ceased, leaving approximately 500,000 tons of heavy metal slag. As a result of these operations approximately 150-acres of property ("Murray Smelter") are now contaminated with antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc. The shallow groundwater aquifer may also be contaminated with arsenic. Lead and arsenic were determined to be those substances which exceeded acceptable environmental standards.
Faced with the possibility of becoming a Superfund site - and all the stigma associated with this status - the city decided to take proactive measures not to be at the mercy of federal bureaucracy. Therefore, the city proposed to the EPA that it become the lead agency in charge of the cleanup of this site. The intent was to avoid the National Priorities Listing ("NPL") and have the flexibility of future land development.
In this paper, I will describe the factual setting in which we found ourselves which influenced our decision to become the lead agent. A brief discussion of previous remediation models, along with the reasons for opting out of these models, will follow. Finally, this paper will discuss the importance of involving all interested parties in designing remediation plans and conclude with several recommendations for others who may want to follow our lead.
BACKGROUND Factual Setting[1]
In 1992, the EPA and its counterpart in Utah, Utah Department of Environmental Quality ("UDEQ"), conducted the Salt Lake valley-wide smelter study. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the scope and breadth of the possible problems with the past smelter operations. In January 1994, the EPA proposed Murray Smelter to be placed on the NPL.
For political and public stigma reasons, the Mayor and the members of the City Council determined that a formal listing on the NPL was to be avoided if at all possible. This was especially prominent after viewing a neighboring city's experience with a similar experience: the Sharon Steel Superfund Site. Similar to ASARCO, Sharon Steel began operations in the first part of this century and closed smelting operations in 1958 and entirely in 1971. The operation produced 10 million tons of tailings. In 1982, after complaints by neighbors of windblown tailings, UDEQ and U.S. Geological Survey discovered high concentrates of lead, arsenic, cadmium, and zinc in the soil and groundwater. In 1990, the site was placed on the NPL...
To continue reading
Request your trial