Introduction

The reason for this lab is to understand and explain the development and reason for the formation of the EPA. Other aspects include what the process of the EPA and other organizations that work with the EPA do for the environment. Another aspect is to look at the differences between superfund sites and how they are cleaned up. We will also discus the Iron King Mine Humboldt Smelter Superfund Site (IKMHSSS) is immediately adjacent to the town of Dewey-Humboldt, Arizona. I will also look at the results for Phytostabilization from the Iron King Mine Humboldt smelter Superfund and how it changes with no compost to percentages of compost. In phytostabilization, plants are chosen which accumulate metals in the root zone, rather than extract them into above-ground biomass, so as to prevent metals from entering the food chain (Mendez and Maier, 2008). 

The four phases of EPA's planning, budget, and results cycle.

What does the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) do?

To accomplish this mission the EPA does a variety of things. Develop and Enforce of Regulations, when Congress writes an environmental law, the EPA implements it by writing regulations. Often, they set national standards that states and tribes enforce through their own regulations. If they fail to meet the national standards, they can help them. They also enforce their regulations, and help companies understand the requirements. The EPA will also give grants; nearly half of their budget goes into grants to state environmental programs, non-profits, educational institutions, and others. These organizations use the money for a wide variety of projects, from scientific studies that help us make decisions to community cleanups. Overall, grants help them achieve their overall mission: protect human health and the environment. The EPA will also study environmental issues. At laboratories located throughout the nation, they identify and try to solve environmental problems. To learn even more, they will share information with other countries, private sector organizations, academic institutions, and other agencies. The EPA will also sponsor partnerships, in a statement made by the EPA “We don't protect the environment on our own, we work with businesses, non-profit organizations, and state and local governments through dozens of partnerships.” The EPA also works very hard to teach people about the environment. They will teach the basics that include reducing how much energy and materials you use, reusing what you can and recycling the rest. Finally the EPA was and tries to publish information. Through written materials and through their Web site, EPA informs the public about their activities.

EPA headquarters building in Washington, D.C.

1.       Why was the EPA established?

The EPA was established because of concerns with pollution and the fact there was no organization that could combat the pollutions that where effecting the environment at the time. In a special Message from President Nixon to the Congress, about Reorganization Plans to Establish the Environmental Protection Agency.

To the Congress of the United States:

As concern with the condition of our physical environment has intensified, it has become increasingly clear that we need to know more about the total environment--land, water, and air. It also has become increasingly clear that only by reorganizing our Federal efforts can we develop that knowledge, and effectively ensure the protection, development and enhancement of the total environment itself.

The Government's environmentally-related activities have grown up piecemeal over the years. The time has come to organize them rationally and systematically. As a major step in this direction, I am transmitting today two reorganization plans: one to establish an Environmental Protection Agency, and one to establish, with the Department of Commerce, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Our national government today is not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food. Indeed, the present governmental structure for dealing with environmental pollution often defies effective and concerted action. Despite its complexity, for pollution control purposes the environment must be perceived as a single, interrelated system. Present assignments of departmental responsibilities do not reflect this interrelatedness. Many agency missions, for example, are designed primarily along media lines--air, water, and land. Yet the sources of air, water, and land pollution are interrelated and often interchangeable. A single source may pollute the air with smoke and chemicals, the land with solid wastes, and a river or lake with chemical and other wastes. Control of the air pollution may produce more solid wastes, which then pollute the land or water. Control of the water-polluting effluent may convert it into solid wastes, which must be disposed of on land.

Similarly, some pollutants--chemicals, radiation, pesticides--appear in all media. Successful control of them at present requires the coordinated efforts of a variety of separate agencies and departments. The results are not always successful.

2.       What is a superfund site?

 Superfund is the name given to the environmental program established to address abandoned hazardous waste sites. It is also the name of the fund established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA statute, CERCLA overview). This law was enacted in the wake of the discovery of toxic waste dumps such as Love Canal and Times Beach in the 1970s. It allows the EPA to clean up such sites and to compel responsible parties to perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA-lead cleanups.

4. Find three superfund sites (besides IKMHSSS) and describe them:

1.       Location, description

 The South Cavalcade Superfund Site occupies approximately 66 acres of land located approximately three miles north of downtown Houston, Texas, and about one mile southwest of the intersection of Interstate Loop 610 and U.S. Highway 59. The Site is rectangular in shape and is approximately 3,400 feet long in the north-south direction by 900 feet long in the east-west direction.

1.       When were they established?

A wood treating plant operated at the Site from 1910 until 1962. The wood treating process area was located in the southern portion of the Site along Collingsworth Street. A coal tar distillation plant was also operated on the southeastern portion of the Site from about 1944 until 1962. The Site is currently occupied by three trucking firms, with much of the ground surface (particularly in the southern half of the site) covered by pavement, buildings, or storage areas. The NPL Inclusion Proposal Date: October 5, 1984. NPL Inclusion Final Date: June 10, 1986.

Waste water Treatment Plant

1.       Contaminants?

Primary risk from the site stems from the carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs), volatile organics, and metal salts associated with creosote and the wood preservation process. These constituents are found both in the contaminated soils and in ground water, as DNAPL and dissolved-phase constituents. In 1983, the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority investigated the Site for potential use and found evidence of creosote in the subsurface.

1.       Who is responsible for the cleanup?

The Site’s Responsible Party, Beazer East, Inc. (Beazer). This is the company that ran the wood treatment plant along with the coal tar distillation plant. The Beazer Company agreed to fund the cleanup and work alongside the EPA and the Department of Environmental Quality.

1.     Cleanup results to date

Beazer in 2005 have been discussing different ground water remedial options for the Site, including a natural attenuation component. HCTRA met with EPA on January 26, 2010 and followed that up with a letter seeking EPA’s concurrence on their approach to environmental management practices during construction. EPA has concurred/responded to the specific management practices listed in the letter on February 26, 2010. HCTRA has received approval for the project and soil sampling of the Collingsworth Road along the Site was completed in June. Along with this contaminated soil have been contained and capped in two separate areas of the Site, eliminating any potential for direct contact with impacted soils and ensuring current and future protection of human health and the environment.

1.       Was phytostabilization used? If so, name two plants species involved.

No, there was no phytostabilizaton done as the ROD recommended soil flushing and washing to reach a risk-based remedial goal. 

 

2.       Location, description

The 213-acre Nineteenth Avenue Landfill is located in an industrial area of Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona. It has been estimated that the landfill contains approximately nine million cubic yards of refuse. An approximately 200 acre section of the site is located on the northern bank of the Salt River.

2.       When were they established?

                In 1957, the City of Phoenix extended an existing lease with the landowner to operate a municipal landfill. The landowner brought in another party to start sand and gravel mining at the site to create the space needed for the landfill. The mining and landfill operations began shortly thereafter. The landfill was operated by the City of Phoenix from 1964 until 1979, but was closed by a cease and desist order issued by the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS), predecessor to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), in February 1979. The NPL Inclusion Proposal Date:  12/30/82. The NPL Inclusion Final Date: 09/08/83.

2.       Contaminants?

Groundwater was found to contain very low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals including arsenic, barium, mercury, and nickel, and beta radiation. Sampling of soil and refuse in the landfill during the RI had shown that the contents of the landfill are generally similar to those expected in municipal landfills, although refuse in the landfill also contains VOCs and pesticides. Soil contained VOCs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals and pesticides. During the RI, the most frequently detected VOCs were ethyl benzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, xylenes and toluene.

2.          Who is responsible for the cleanup?

The City of Phoenix is the PRP for the 19th Avenue Landfill. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality was assigned the oversight lead at this site in 1988. The City of Phoenix completed the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) in June 1989, and it was approved by ADEQ in September 1989. 

The 19th Avenue Landfill site in Phoenix.

2.       Cleanup results to date

Pre-final inspections were conducted to determine the substantial completion of the project. A pre-final inspection of the gas collection system and flare stations was performed on December 4 and 5, 1996. Inspections for the other features of the project, including the completed levees and channelization of the Salt River, were conducted on December 6 and 12, 1996. Based on the results of the inspections, the project was determined to be substantially complete on December 6, 1996. Three Five Year Review Reports have been completed. The first Review was conducted in September 2000, the second in September 2005, and the third in September 2010. The 2010 Five Year Review concluded that the site remedy is protective of human health and the environment.  

2.       Was phytostabilization used? If so, name two plants species involved.

No, the remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this site.  

 

3.       Location, description

The Carson River Mercury Site is a 50 mile length of the Carson River, beginning near Carson City, Nevada and extending downstream to the Lahontan Valley.

3.       When were they established?

Contamination at the site is a legacy of the Comstock mining era of the late 1800s, when mercury was imported to the area for processing of gold and silver ore. Ore mined from the Comstock Lode was transported to mill sites, where it was crushed and mixed with mercury to amalgamate the precious metals. During the mining era, an estimated 7,500 tons of mercury were discharged into the Carson River drainage, primarily in the form of mercury-contaminated tailings. The NPL Inclusion Proposal Date:  10/26/89. The NPL Inclusion Final Date: 08/30/90

3.       Contaminants?

Surface water, sediment, soil, fish and wildlife at the site are contaminated with mercury. Mercury levels in game fish in Lahontan Reservoir (e.g., walleye, white bass) routinely exceed the Food and Drug Administration action level of 1 part per million (ppm). In 1998, a walleye had record-high 16 ppm mercury present in its tissue.

3.       Who is responsible for the cleanup?

No PRPs have been named for contamination at the site. Carson River Operable Unit 1 (OU1): After the site was listed on the Superfund National Priorities list, EPA began the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the site. The initial phase of the investigation, which lasted from 1993 to 1995, involved the collection and laboratory analysis of hundreds of samples including surface and sub-surface soils, sediments, groundwater, vegetation, garden crops, and indoor air. As part of the assessment, EPA established a site-specific cleanup level of 80 ppm mercury for contaminated soils in residential areas. The 80 ppm cleanup level is based on site-specific assumptions about the form of mercury in the soil. From August 1998 through December 1999, EPA’s contractors carried out cleanup work in Dayton and Silver City.

3.        Cleanup results to date

Excavation and removal of mercury-contaminated tailings and soils from the Carson River Mercury Site have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated soil while further studies are taking place.

3.       Was phytostabilization used? If so, name two plants species involved.

No, as the process used consisted of clearing and grubbing of brush, downed tree limbs, personal property, and debris. Ultimately, approximately 9,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil were excavated Most of the soils were disposed at a nearby landfill.

Specific IKMHSSS Questions (refer to O’Sullivan Report and Iron King Field Study Slide Show)

5. How were the specific plant species chosen for phytostabilization of IKMHSSS?

They screened plants that were native to the Dewey-Humboldt area for phytostabilization potential. These plants were chosen based on a visual examination of the Dewey-Humboldt area and also on USDA guidelines for plant habitats in the US. Plants were also chosen to represent trees, shrubs, and grasses to allow for a variety of plant canopies and rooting depths. The rational for this approach is that it will offer the best potential to achieve a stable vegetative cap that functions to minimize erosion processes and that encourages plant succession at the site in the decades following establishment of the vegetative cap.

6. Why would composting increase the pH of the soil?

The pH levels of garbage, yard clippings, manure, and other compostable material is often between 5.0 and 7.0 unless it contains ash or other highly alkaline materials. All of these materials are found in compost. Compost will not necessarily lower the pH of soil; however it does act as a buffer. Adding compost to soil will give it a range of pH so to speak making it acceptable for plants that prefer pH up to more than one point from the actual pH of the soil. Another reason is “makes a nutrient-rich soil amendment that aids water retention and slows soil erosion” (Cunningham & Cunningham).

7. Interpret the tables in the O’Sullivan Field Study Paper.

a. Refer to figure 1 and observe the shaded bars. Give the grams dry weight for each species with

10% compost applied. Which species grew more with less compost? Buffalo grass was at 4grams. Mesquite was at 1.0 grams. Quailbush was at 1.5 grams. Catclaw acacia was at .5 grams. Mountain mahogany was at .75 grams. Arizona fescue was at .25 grams. With all of these numbers that I have given all are as precise as I could get them when reading the chart.   

b. Refer to figure 3. What was the bacterial count for the planted control at time zero (at the

start)?

The bacterial count planted plant at time zero for zero compost was about 10³; at 10% compost it was a little over 10³; at 15% compost it was in-between 10⁴ and 10⁵; at 20% compost it was at 10⁶.  

c. Also figure 3. What was the average bacterial count for the planted treatment area on Day 60

with 15% compost?

The average bacterial count for planted treatments at 15% on day 60 was 10⁸.

Conclusion

One of the main things I learned about was that the EPA is an organization that has helped and contributed to the cleanup of thousands of chemically toxic site. Another aspect about the EPA I learned was that it was established to help combat the many human elements that have destroyed the environment. The areas that the EPA has cleaned are known as superfunds as they don’t have a person that is willing or nobody knows who is responsible for the contaminations and is funded by the superfund.

While many of the superfund sites that I discussed about had differences all of them had problems with water especially the Carson River Mercury Site. What I felt was interesting about this site was that the area was infected by mercury in the late 1800s until around the 1900-1910 which was amazing when thing that there was still high traces of it until the 1990s. When I found out though there was an estimated 7,500 tons of mercury that were discharged into the Carson River drainage, primarily in the form of mercury-contaminated tailings.

Many elements that make the Iron King Mine Humboldt smelter Superfund interesting was that it has been using a phytostabilization. Phytostabilization involves the reduction of the mobility of heavy metals in soil. Immobilization of metals can be accomplished by decreasing wind-blown dust, minimizing soil erosion, and reducing contaminant solubility or bioavailability to the food chain. The addition of soil amendments, such as organic matter, phosphates, alkalizing agents, and biosolids can decrease solubility of metals in soil and minimize leaching to groundwater. “The mobility of contaminants is reduced by the accumulation of contaminants by plant roots, absorption onto roots, or precipitation within the root zone” (Miller). In some instances, hydraulic control to prevent leachate migration can be achieved because of the large quantity of water transpired by plants.

Works Cited

Mendez, M.O., and R.M. Maier. 2008. Phytostabilization of mine tailings in arid and semiarid

environments – an emerging remediation technology. Environ. Health Perspec. 116:278-283.

Cunningham, W., & Cunningham, M. (Date Accessed: 2012). Environmental science. (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Miller, R., 1996, Phytoremediation, Technology Overview Report, Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, Series O, Vol. 3, October.

Michael Schennum. Phoenix trying to redevelop 19th Avenue Landfill site. 2012. Photograph. The Arizona Republic

US EPA. EPA headquarters. 2012. Photograph. EPA.GOV


US EPA. four phases of EPA's. 2012. Chart. EPA.GOV

US EPA Region 6 Superfund. Nineteenth Avenue Landfill. 2012. Map. EPA.GOV, Arizona. 

US EPA Region 6 Superfund. SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET in Harris County, Texas Site Status Summary 0602895. 2012. Map. EPA.GOV, Texas.