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
------- |