Public safety measures used at many Superfund sites sometimes fail in the long run, possibly jeopardizing human health and the environment, according to a new ELI report. The measures, which are called “institutional controls,” are often used at hazardous waste sites where for a variety of reasons some contamination is allowed to remain in place. Institutional controls are legal and administrative mechanisms that limit land use at such sites to those appropriate to the level of cleanup, or seek to modify human behavior to limit exposure to remaining contamination. Examples include deed restrictions, groundwater use restrictions, educational programs, or even warning signs.
Protecting Public Health at Superfund Sites: Can Institutional Controls Meet the Challenge? uses case studies of four sites on EPA’s National Priorities List. “Many of the institutional controls implemented at these sites have been successful, but others have failed,” according to Senior Attorney John Pendergrass, co-author of the report. “And because the successful ones have only been in place for a limited time it is not clear they will succeed over the long-term.”
ELI’s research also revealed that institutional controls are not being monitored in a routine and consistent manner at all sites where they are in place. Although EPA is required to review every five years all remedies at sites where contamination is left in place, this may not be frequent enough to avoid failures of some institutional controls, because circumstances, such as ownership, can change rapidly.
In their analysis of why these safety measures can fail, the researchers discovered that the entire process involving use of institutional controls has sometimes been poorly documented, and selection of the controls has often failed to include adequate stakeholder input, according to Senior Attorney Linda Breggin, another co-author. “Early cooperation and coordination among federal, state, and local governments — along with a strong public role — in the selection, implementation, and operation of institutional controls is critical to their long-term success.”
Specifically, the study discovered that at some sites the institutional controls that would ultimately be used were not evaluated at the appropriate time — during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, which is the formal process used to evaluate cleanup alternatives at Superfund sites. Sometimes the controls have been selected after the decisionmaking phase on how to handle the cleanup had been completed and published — the Record of Decision process — reducing public input even further.
“Obviously, leaving evaluation and selection of institutional controls out of these formal processes helps to create the exact problems we discovered,” said Pendergrass. “It can hinder public participation, result in conflicts among regulators, and lead to poor documentation of selected controls. We recommend that a detailed investigation and analysis of potential institutional controls be part of these procedures.”
Another important finding from ELI’s research is that community awareness, acceptance, and compliance with institutional controls is essential to their success. "Well-designed community outreach and educational programs tailored to meet the needs of the particular community are a critical part to the solution of the problems we discovered," said Pendergrass.
Protecting Public Health at Superfund Sites: Can Institutional Controls Meet the Challenge? can be downloaded for free or ordered by calling (800) 433-5120 or sending an email to orders@eli.org. For press copies, please contact pressrequest@eli.org.