j
\.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
                        Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Public Liaison Report
      Corrective Actions Were Generally
      Implemented at Stauffer Chemical
      Company Superfund Site,
      Tarpon Springs, Florida

      Report No. 08-P-0264
      September 16, 2008

-------
Report Contributors:             Larry Dare
                                Christine Baughman
                                John Coll
Abbreviations

CIC          Community Involvement Coordinator
EPA         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
BSD         Explanation of Significant Differences
OIG         Office of Inspector General
ROD         Record of Decision
RPM         Remedial Project Manager
SMC         Stauffer Management Company
Cover photo:   Photo of the South Parcel, Stauffer Chemical Company Superfund Site,
               Tarpon Springs, Florida (EPA OIG photo).

-------
                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Office of Inspector General

                   At   a   Glance
                                                            08-P-0264
                                                    September 16, 2008
                                                              Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review

The Office of Inspector
General (DIG) evaluated the
actions taken by the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 4 staff
in response to a June 2004
OIG report concerning the
Stauffer Chemical Company
Superfund site in Tarpon
Springs, Florida.
Background
The Tarpon Springs plant was
used from 1947 to 1981 to
process phosphorous.  Even
though the plant was removed,
contaminated soil and material
remained at the 130-acre site.
EPA approved leaving these
contaminants there, after
consolidating and solidifying
them, and then installing a
cap. In June 2004, the OIG
identified actions needed to
allay public concerns about
the cleanup actions proposed
for this site and for other sites
with similar geological traits,
and to improve citizen
involvement in the process.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.

Corrective Actions Were Generally
Implemented at Stauffer Chemical Company
Superfund Site, Tarpon Springs, Florida
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2008/
20080916-08-P-0264.pdf
 What We Found
Under a consent decree, the potentially responsible party is preparing the design
for the EPA-approved cleanup actions. In December 2007, the design was
30 percent complete. As recommended in OIG Report No. 2004-P-00018,
Review of Actions at Stauffer Chemical Company Superfund Site, Tarpon Springs,
Florida, June 3, 2004 (OIG 2004 Report), this draft design incorporated the
information and recommendations from the additional site studies.

Also as recommended in the OIG 2004 Report, Region 4 staff revised the
community involvement plan for the site to include  some community activity
during the design phase.  These activities are being performed. For example,
public meetings were held in October 2005 and June 2007. In addition, when
issuing the May 2007 Explanation of Significant Differences to change the
cleanup actions proposed, Region 4 staff complied with EPA requirements.
Although EPA could have asked for public input before making this decision, it
does not require formal public participation during the remedy design phase.

In November 2004, to comply with a recommendation in the OIG 2004 Report, a
Region 4 official instructed the staff to determine whether karst was present at a
cleanup site and, if so, whether it would impact the site. Karst, an area of
limestone formations that often contains  sinkholes, is widespread in Florida.
Some citizens believed that sinkholes at the Stauffer Chemical Company Tarpon
Springs plant could cause any structures  at the Superfund site to settle when the
underlying ground sinks, and could create ready pathways for pollutants to travel
between the surficial and Floridan aquifers.

We reviewed six sites to determine if recently-started site investigations included
work to identify the presence and impact of karst. Although three of the six sites
are not in karst-prone areas, three sites are so located.  Earlier studies at these three
sites had not evaluated the potential impact of karst. More recent studies are
addressing the karst issue.
 What We Recommend
We have no recommendations for corrective action.

-------
5
!.'
                    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                  WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                                           OFFICE OF
                                                                        INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
                                  September 16, 2008
                   Corrective Actions Were Generally Implemented at Stauffer
                   Chemical Company Superfund Site, Tarpon Springs, Florida
                   Report No. 08-P-0264
                   Nancy E. Long
                   Acting Assistant Inspector General for Congressional and Public Liaison

                   J. I. Palmer, Jr.
                   Regional Administrator
                   Region 4
This is our report on the subject review conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  It describes efforts by EPA Region 4 to
address the findings in an earlier OIG report about the Stauffer Chemical Company Superfund
site, Tarpon Springs, Florida. This report represents the opinion of the OIG.

On August  1, 2008, we issued a draft of this report for review and comment.  You agreed with
our conclusions.

The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $165,151.

Action Required

Because this report contains no recommendations, you are not required to provide a written
response; we are closing  this report upon issuance.  We have no objection to the further release
of this report to the public.  For your convenience, this report will be available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig.

If you or your staff has any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 202-566-0918;
or Eric Lewis, Director for Special Reviews and Inspections, at 202-566-2664 or
lewis.eric@epa.gov.

-------
Corrective Actions Were Generally Implemented                               08-P-0264
at Stauffer Chemical Company Superfund Site,
Tarpon Springs, Florida
                      Table of Contents
Chapters
   1   Introduction 	     1

            Purpose 	     1
            Background 	     1
            Scope and Methodology	     2

   2   Draft Design Incorporated Results of Additional Studies	     3

            Prior Report Made Recommendations Concerning the Design	     3
            Region 4 Completed the Corrective Actions	     3

   3   Community Involvement Met Requirements While Missing Opportunities	     4

            Prior Report Recommended Continuing Community Involvement 	     4
            Region 4 Completed the Corrective Actions	     4
            Region 4 Missed Opportunities to Significantly Involve the Community	     5

   4   Potential Impact of Karst Was Investigated	     8

            Prior Report Recommended Guidance on Karst Investigations 	     8
            Region 4 Completed the Corrective Actions	     8
            Karst Geology Was Addressed 	     8

   Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits	    10
Appendices
   A   Region 4 Response to Draft Report	    11

   B   Distribution 	    12

-------
                                                                            08-P-0264
                                Chapter 1
                                 Introduction
Purpose
             The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General
             (OIG) reviewed the actions taken by Region 4 in response to the EPA OIG Report
             No. 2004-P-00018, Review of Actions at Stauffer Chemical Company Superfund
             Site, Tarpon Springs, Florida, June 3, 2004 (OIG 2004 Report). During this
             follow-up review, the objectives were:

             1.  Did the responsible party incorporate the results from the additional studies
                into the remedial design for the site?

             2.  Did Region 4 implement the actions in the revised community relations plan
                and,  if so, does the community believe it is better informed about site
                activities and more involved in making decisions concerning the site?

             3.  Have recent remedial investigation/feasibility studies performed in Region 4
                included geophysical and related groundwater studies for karst?
Background
             The Stauffer Chemical Company (Tarpon Springs plant) Superfund site was used
             to process elemental phosphorus from 1947 until 1981. Most of the facilities have
             been dismantled.  The site property, about 130 acres, is located on Anclote Road
             in Tarpon Springs, Pinellas County, Florida.  It lies along the Anclote River
             2 miles upstream from the Gulf of Mexico. Land use in the surrounding area
             includes light industrial, commercial, and residential.

             The site was placed on the Superfund program's National Priority List in May
             1994. Based on evaluations of the contamination at the site, in July 1998, EPA
             issued a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying how the site would be cleaned up.
             Among the actions proposed was consolidating contaminated material and soil in
             various areas of the site (including the main pond area), solidifying the pond
             material and contaminated soil below the water table in the consolidation areas,
             and placing a cap over these areas.

             In accordance with a consent decree, Stauffer Management Company (SMC)
             subsequently conducted additional studies to  further ensure that the selected
             remedy was safe and would provide long-term protection of human health and the
             environment over the life of the remedy. The findings of these studies supported
             the selected remedy outlined in the ROD and provided a further technical basis
             for the design of the cleanup actions. SMC, with oversight from EPA, began the

-------
                                                                             08-P-0264
             design work about October 2005 and expected to complete the designs in May
             2006.

             Due to citizen complaints and concerns, as well as related letters from a Florida
             congressional representative, the EPA National Ombudsman (then located in the
             Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) started a review of EPA's
             actions at the site. This review was completed by the OIG and resulted in the
             OIG 2004 Report. The Regional Administrator for EPA's Region 4 took
             corrective actions recommended in the OIG 2004 Report.  He identified these
             actions in memoranda dated October 2004 and December 2005.
Scope and Methodology
             We conducted the follow-up review from October 2007 through April 2008. As
             part of our work, we reviewed information from EPA's site file for the Stauffer
             Chemical Company (Tarpon Springs plant) Superfund site, especially technical
             reports completed after June 2004; EPA's financial management system; and
             various Internet Websites, such as EPA's official Website for the public, the
             Website of a firm doing work at the Superfund site, and MapQuest®. We also
             interviewed key officials in Region 4 who worked on the Superfund site and other
             EPA staff, as well as a representative from each of three community
             organizations.

             In addition, we reviewed documents in EPA's files related to six other sites at
             which a remedial investigation or feasibility study was started after June 2004.
             The purpose of this work was to determine if these studies included appropriate
             karst-related components.

             We performed this review in accordance with Government Auditing Standards,
             issued by the Comptroller  General of the United States, except that we limited our
             review of management controls and compliance to those directly related to the
             objectives of the audit.

             On August 1, 2008, the OIG issued a draft report to the Regional Administrator
             for Region 4 to review and comment.  The Regional Administrator responded on
             August 29, 2008.  He agreed with the conclusions.  We include the Regional
             Administrator's memorandum in Appendix A.

-------
                                                                       08-P-0264
                              Chapter 2
               Draft Design  Incorporated Results
                        of Additional Studies
            The Region 4 staff completed the corrective actions regarding the selected remedy
            that were recommended in the OIG 2004 Report. Based on the design at the
            30-percent stage, SMC properly incorporated the cautionary recommendations
            and results of the additional site studies.

Prior Report Made Recommendations Concerning the Design

            The OIG 2004 Report noted that the proposed cleanup action was only feasible if
            its design incorporated the cautionary recommendations included in the
            2001-2003 geophysical study, and if additional groundwater characteristics
            information and analysis lacking in the 2003 draft groundwater report were
            addressed. The OIG recommended that the cautionary recommendations be
            implemented and that groundwater characteristics be adequately defined for
            remedial design.

Region 4 Completed the Corrective Actions

            The Regional Administrator agreed to these recommendations.  In December
            2007, SMC's contractor submitted the Design Criteria Report (submitted at the
            30-percent stage) for the cleanup work.  Based on comparing the design report to
            the previous studies, we concluded the design had taken into account the
            recommendations and conclusions of the prior studies. The Region 4 Remedial
            Project Manager (RPM) for the site is currently reviewing the 90-percent design
            report. He sent this  report to selected community groups and the local
            information repository for the site.

-------
                                                                       08-P-0264
                              Chapter 3

        Community Involvement Met Requirements

                   While Missing Opportunities

            The Region 4 staff completed the corrective actions recommended in the OIG
            2004 Report concerning community involvement, but could have allowed the
            community to be more involved in the change to the ROD that was made in
            May 2007. However, the actions of Region 4 personnel complied with EPA's
            requirements for processing such changes.

Prior Report Recommended Continuing Community Involvement

            Although Region 4 generally met the community involvement requirements,  a
            segment of the  community was dissatisfied with the EPA efforts and the remedy
            selected in the ROD. Some members of the community believed Region 4 had
            failed to be open and frank in its discussions and did not take the community
            concerns seriously.  In several instances, Region 4 did not promptly address
            community concerns. As a result, some community members were skeptical
            about EPA's decisions, particularly concerning the remedy selected.  EPA
            requires no formal public participation during the remedy design phase, so
            community members doubted that their remaining concerns would be addressed.
            The OIG recommended that EPA Region 4 revise its January 1993 community
            relations plan to include site visits during the design phase and obtaining
            community input on design documents.

Region 4 Completed the Corrective Actions

            Region 4 staff adopted a revised community involvement plan for the site in
            November 2005. Among other things, it required the EPA RPM and  Community
            Involvement Coordinator (CIC) to conduct public availability sessions during the
            design phase to provide the community an opportunity to learn about key
            milestones in the design process, and provide EPA with input on the  plan.  Public
            availability sessions were held in October 2005 and June 2007. Also, according
            to the three community members we contacted, the RPM promptly responded
            when contacted.

            The October 2005 meeting provided the community with information about the
            design process  that produced the plans and specifications for the cleanup. The
            design process  included, among other things, a pilot test for solidifying the
            contaminated soil in the old wastewater ponds.  This pilot test evaluated the
            equipment and methods proposed for the final cleanup.

-------
                                                                             08-P-0264
             The June 2007 meeting provided the community with information about a
             significant change to the ROD. In May 2007, the Region 4 Acting Division
             Director for the Superfund Division signed an Explanation of Significant
             Differences (BSD). Based on the experience from the pilot study for the
             solidification component of the selected remedy, EPA decided to use a
             groundwater cut-off wall instead of solidification.  The cut-off wall would be
             installed around the perimeter of the waste ponds to channel horizontal
             groundwater flow around the contaminated pond sediments, thus reducing the
             potential  for contaminants to move.

Region 4 Missed Opportunities to Significantly Involve the
Community

             Although Region 4 staff complied with EPA requirements concerning the BSD,
             they missed some opportunities to inform and involve the community.  As
             required,  Region 4 published notices in local newspapers about the BSD. Also, as
             noted above, they held a public availability session about the BSD; such a
             meeting,  although recommended, was not required. Community input is not
             required by EPA guidance documents on processing an BSD. However, over a
             year elapsed between when the need for a change was recognized and the BSD
             was signed.  During that period, the RPM informed the representative of one
             community group that a change was being considered.  Other community groups
             were not  informed and asked for input.

             The solidification pilot test was ended in February 2006 because of a fire at the
             site.  The fire resulted from a reaction between the elemental phosphorus below
             ground and the cement mixture used for solidification during the pilot test.
             Besides this adverse reaction, the pilot test identified metal debris in portions of
             the former waste ponds; the debris interfered with the mixing operation required
             for solidifying contaminated material.  Because of these implementation problems
             for the solidification component, i.e., the fire and debris, Region 4 determined that
             it was necessary to change this part of the proposed cleanup action.  Alternatives
             were considered at a meeting in May 2006. The proposed change was described
             in documents prepared by SMC's contractor in June 2006 and August 2006. In
             November 2006, the contractor gave Region 4 more information about the
             proposed change. Collectively, this was the information on which Region 4 based
             its decision.

             The Region 4 staff missed opportunities to significantly involve the community,
             as follows:

                  • Except for one community organization, in February 2006, Region 4 staff
                    did not provide information to community members about the fire at the
                    site and reassure them about their safety. Representatives from two other

-------
                                                                 08-P-0264
       community organizations with whom we spoke indicated they had
       expected Region 4 to tell them about the fire.

     •  In May 2006, Region 4 staff decided to consider alternatives to solidifying
       material at the site.  With the exception of one community group, the RPM
       did not inform the community that EPA was seeking alternatives and the
       design work might be delayed.

     •  By January 2007, Region 4 staff had information on the alternatives and
       could have provided it to the community for their input. Between then and
       May 2007, Region 4 staff were preparing and processing the BSD. The
       BSD was signed on May 24, 2007.  This document was Region 4's first
       official notice to the community about the fire, its effect on the selected
       remedy, alternative remedies considered, and the decision reached by
       Region 4 to change the remedy.

The Meyers Cove Homeowners Association was the exception to the above.
Meyers Cove is the residential area closest to the site. Because of this proximity,
the RPM sent the association representative e-mail updates on the situation at the
site in February 2006, May 2006, December 2006,  and May 2007.

Given the extent of community concerns about this site in the past, Region 4 staff
might have kept the community better informed and involved. Although two of
the community members with whom we spoke were satisfied with the level of
communication from Region 4, one believed Region 4's  communication
continued to be of poor quality. This concern was reflected in newspaper articles
about the June 2007 public meeting, one of which indicated some community
members believed EPA did not listen to their questions, suggestions, and
critiques.

Region 4 staff offered several reasons for not involving the community earlier.

     •  Concerning the fire, two articles appeared about it in the local newspaper.
       Since the Region 4 staff considered these articles factually accurate, a
       Superfund Fact Sheet was unnecessary.

     •  Concerning the change to the selected remedy, Region 4 staff wanted to
       determine the appropriate technical solution before presenting it to the
       community. They believed the decision they reached was the only viable
       option. In addition, they did not consider the remedy change to be a major
       one.

     •  Following the June  2007 public meeting, the RPM responded to written
       comments submitted by a member of the pubic and posted this response to
       EPA's Website for the site. The RPM also  provided information to some
       community members in response to their questions about similar sites.

-------
                                                                 08-P-0264
       Additionally, Region 4 obtained the services of an expert identified by
       community members to review the design.  Thus, Region 4 staff addressed
       the questions, suggestions, and critiques of community members.

Although this report does not contain recommendations, we believe the RPM and
CIC should be more proactive in communicating with community members. This
is particularly important following emergencies (like the fire) and when
contemplating changes to the selected remedy, such as substituting the retaining
wall for solidification. As noted in the April 2005 Superfund Community
Involvement Handbook, "Most communities accept a remedy, even if they are not
completely satisfied with it, provided they understand how the decision was
reached and had a meaningful part in reaching the decision."

-------
                                                                          08-P-0264
                               Chapter 4

         Potential Impact of Karst Was  Investigated

            The Region 4 staff completed the corrective actions recommended in the OIG
            2004 Report about karst investigations.  Of six sites with recently-started remedial
            investigations, the three located in karst-prone areas included studies to evaluate
            the impact of karst.

Prior Report Recommended Guidance on Karst Investigations

            In the OIG 2004 Report, we concluded that EPA had not adequately supported the
            remedy presented in the 1998 ROD. Specifically, EPA should have ensured that
            the additional technical studies performed in 2001-2003 were completed earlier in
            the process. Karst, an area of limestone formations that often contains sinkholes
            and is widespread in Florida, was not discussed in any of the study reports prior to
            2000.  Some citizens believed that sinkholes at the Stauffer Chemical Company
            Tarpon Springs plant could cause any structures at the Superfund site to settle
            when the underlying ground sinks, and could create ready pathways for pollutants
            to travel between the surficial and Floridan aquifers. According to the OIG's
            hydrogeologist, the karstic nature of the site should have been integrated into
            understanding the hydrogeologic framework of the site from 1992 onward. The
            OIG recommended that EPA Region 4 require that any future studies in known
            karst areas include geophysical and related groundwater studies for karst.

Region 4 Completed  the Corrective Actions

            Region 4 required, in a memorandum dated November 2004, additional attention
            at sites in karst-prone areas. In this memorandum, the Region 4 Director, Waste
            Division, emphasized to his staff the importance of determining the potential for
            karst at a cleanup site and its possible impact, especially on drinking water
            sources.  Thus, early in the investigation, the site location should be compared to
            historical geology information, as well as site-specific hydrogeological
            information. Region 4  employs hydrogeologists in the Technical Services
            Section, Superfund Division; RPMs may consult with them regarding site
            conditions.  They are involved in karst-related work at the Anniston Army Depot
            Superfund site in Alabama.

Karst Geology Was Addressed

            Recent studies address the potential impact of karst.  We reviewed actions at six
            sites with recently started studies to determine if they included work to identify
            the presence and impact of karst.  Three of these sites are located in karst-prone

-------
                                                                  08-P-0264
areas, and three are not.  Thus, karst-related studies would not be appropriate for
the three latter sites.  For one of the other three sites (Coleman-Evans Wood
Preserving site, Whitehouse, Florida), the Florida Department of Community
Affairs evaluated the potential risks from sinkholes as part of a local
comprehensive plan. It concluded the karst/sinkhole issue did not appear to be a
problem in Duval County; the risk from sinkholes was considered to be very low.

The other two sites located in karst-prone areas were Alaric Area Groundwater
Plume, Tampa, Florida; and Cabot-Koppers in Gainesville, Florida.  For these two
sites, earlier studies had not evaluated the potential impact of karst. However,
more recent studies of the sites have addressed the potential impact of karst. For
one site, specific karst terrain  information was used to develop the work plan to
install wells. At the other site, an additional study confirmed the presence of karst
terrain.  Thus, work at Region 4 Superfund sites in known karst areas is including
geophysical and related groundwater studies for karst.

-------
                                                                           08-P-0264
                Status of Recommendations and
                    Potential Monetary Benefits
                                                                     POTENTIAL MONETARY
                          RECOMMENDATIONS                                BENEFITS (in SOOOs)
                                                           Planned
Rec.   Page                                                   Completion    Claimed   Agreed To
No.   No.             Subject            Status1    Action Official       Date      Amount   Amount
                 No recommendations
 0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
 C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
 U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
                                         10

-------
                                                                               08-P-0264
                                                                           Appendix A
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL
                               CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET
                               ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960


                                  AUG 29 2008

MEMORANDUM

 SUBJECT:    Response to Draft Public Liaison  Report: Corrective Actions Were Generally
                Implemented at Stauffer Chemical Superfund Site, Tarpon Springs, Florida
                Assignment No. OCPL-FY07-0006

 FROM:       T T r> i     T   / /
                J. I. Palmer, Jr.  is/
                Regional Administrator
 TO*
                Eric Lewis, Director
                US EPA, Office of Inspector General
                Office of Congressional and Public Liaison

       Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report regarding the Stauffer
Chemical Superfund Site in Tarpon Springs, Florida (OIG Assignment No. OCPL-FY07-0006).
The OIG staff demonstrated a great deal of professionalism during the evaluation and
preparation of this report.

       We greatly appreciate your acknowledgement of the progress we have made in addressing
the concerns raised in the June 2004 report. As noted in your report, the design criteria report
takes into account the results from the prior geophysical and groundwater studies at the site.  You
have determined Region 4 staff has addressed the questions and suggestions that the community
raised at the June 2007 public meeting. While the Remedial Project Manager has responded to
inquiries from the public, issued an BSD fact sheet, and held a public meeting during the last year,
we will look for ways to improve communications with the public. Region 4 will continue to
enhance its already robust community involvement efforts, particularly as we transition from the
design phase and into construction.  Finally, as noted in your report, Region 4 is including
appropriate geophysical and groundwater studies at similar sites with karst conditions.

       We do not have any further comments regarding this report. Please contact Franklin Hill,
Director of the Region 4 Superfund Division, at (404) 562-8583, if you have additional questions
or need additional information.


cc: Terry Dempsey, R4 OIG/GAO Liaison
                                           11
                            Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
            Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

-------
                                                                           08-P-0264
                                                                        Appendix B

                                 Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Regional Administrator, Region 4
Chief, Superfund Remedial and Site Evaluation Branch, Region 4
Chief, Superfund Remedial Section A, Region 4
Agency Follow-up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-up Coordinator
Office of General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Region 4
Public Affairs Officer, Region 4
Deputy Inspector General
                                         12

-------