Mna Thesis

The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was significantly reorganized and expanded in 1972. "Clean Water Act" became the Act's common name with amendments in 1972 (EPA). This act is so important because it helped make it illegal, without a permit, to dump pollutants in navigable water. industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. (EPA) The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, is an act that helps clean up hazardous waste. . The act was passed with a budget of 1.6 billion dollars to be used to clean up the hazardous waste from spills or hazardous waste sites (gale). The support for the fund came from a tax that was put on chemical feedstock producers. CERCLA is different from most environmental laws because it deals with past problems rather than trying to prevent future pollution, and because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in addition to acting as a regulatory agency, must clean up sites itself. (Gale) Under the law, the EPA determines the most dangerous hazardous waste sites, based on characteristics like toxicity of wastes and risk of human exposure, and places them on the National Priorities

The southern portion is being cleaned up by the Air Force under Superfund. The reason the northern portion of the base is being clean up under the Safe Drinking Water Act is because it is currently still being used for training by the Army. The Air Force no longer uses the southern portion for training purposes. There are 10 major plumes of concern. Each site has been contaminated by chemical/fuel spills, fire training activities, landfills, and drainage structures.

While NEPA is known to have controversial consequences, particularly in the longer than deemed necessary length of EAs and EISs, as well as in abuse of timelines which

1) The remedy chosen must attain a degree of cleanup that assures the protection of human health and environment. 2) The hazardous substances that will remain after the cleanup, they must meet the applicable and/or relevant and appropriate requirements under federal and state law (ARARs). 3) The remedy chosen must utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent applicable. 4) There must be cost effective response, taking into consideration total long-and short-term costs of the actions. And 5) It must be in accordance with the NCP to a practicable

To achieve this NAAQ established some standard for each of the criteria pollutant. The primary standards defend against hostile health implications. The secondary standard defends against welfare implications. With some pollutant having short and long term averaging timing, the NAAQS are also altered. Short term standards are commonly designed in protecting against severe health implications, whereas the long term standards are traditional used to defend against chronic health

The cleanup is a three-phase plan, estimated to remove more than 99% of the PAH mass from the area, which has begun and will hopefully undo the previous generations of damage. Phase one is building a box to contain the contamination. Upon completion of the first phase, there will be a double steel-walled barricade surrounding contaminated sediment. Phase two involves of dredging the polluted deposits from the adjacent areas and placing them within the enclosure. The final phase of the project encompasses removing the water from the suppression area and placing a waterproof cap on the facility, which is anticipated to have a 200 year life span, to seal in the chemicals.

The first agreement, in 1995, was successfully accomplished at a cost of nearly $3 billion. Due to their achievement on the first contract, they were picked up for the second phase which started in 2000 and they were supposed to close the project by the end of 2006 within a budget of nearly $4 billion. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) anticipated at the beginning that the project would require $36 billion and almost 70 years to be completed; however, the cleanup was finished with a total cost of about $8 billion. The project was named the PMI’s Project of the year in 2006 and received many other awards such as “Project Merit Award from the Environmental Business Journal in 2005” (Hunsberger, 2007). This project was considered a very successful one since it was finished almost half a billion under budget and more than a year earlier than the promised schedule on October 2005. There are a large number of lessons learned that could help every project specifically contamination cleanup projects. All the very on time planning and scheduling, well defined project scope, correct budget planning, and many others have helped this project to be an example project. In the following report we will explore thirteen lessons learned from the closure project (the second phase

The CHSEP, also is known as the State Superfund Program, administers the assessment of properties not listed on the EPA’s NPL that are suspected to be contaminated with hazardous substances. The CHSEP monitors hazardous site that are known or could potentially be contaminated with CHS or oil through its Brownfield Master Inventory (BMI). Once a potential site is added to the BMI, the CHSEP will attempt to identify the person or organization responsible for the release of hazardous substances. If the responsible party either refused or was unable to perform the necessary remediation work, the CHSEP will use State general funds to conduct assessments and carry out remediation at the contaminated site. The CHSEP also coordinates with the EPA in conducting preliminary investigations of NPL sites. The VCP encourages eligible purchasers and parties responsible for contamination to voluntarily clean up and redevelop brownfield sites.4 In 1997, Governor Parris N. Glendening singed Maryland's Brownfields Legislation (Senate Bill 340/House Bill 409) into law by, which allowed for the establishment of the VCP and the Brownfields Revitalization Incentive Program (BRIP). The VCP works to facilitate the reuse of eligible brownfield sites contaminated CHS substances or oil since October 2004. Applicants seeking to enroll a property in the VCP must submit a Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessment, a $6,000 application fee, and any other information required by the Maryland VCP. After reviewing the application, the MDE will notify the applicant whether the application is approved, incomplete, or denied. There are two types of final site approval documents: a No Further Requirements Determination (NFRD) or a Certificate of Completion (COC). A NFRD is a notice by the MDE that the

The basis of this experiment was to test how different contaminates effect ground water when absorbed. The results were surprising as that I felt any additives would immediately change the entire break up and color of the water. What was most surprising to me was that filtering vinegar through ground water it came out relatively clean. I also believed that when filtered all of the water would have large traces of dirt, but that was not the case with the vinegar. This means that there are still viable ways to filter and purify water.

2. We have provided advice based upon information that is current as of March, 2015. Should any new information become available in relation to this issue, please provide that to us as it may change the advice.

These cleanups are required by federal and state laws passed in the last two decades mostly in response to public concern that drinking contaminated ground water may cause cancer or other illnesses. The laws require that, in most instances, the contaminated ground water be restored to a condition that meets state and federal drinking water standards. Businesses and government agencies paying for the cleanups are calling for reconsideration of whether returning all contaminated ground water to drinking water standards is a realistic goal. At the same time, public interest groups are advocating maximum protection of the public's right to a safe water supply in places where there is

The EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) are helping by conducting cleanups at sites where hazardous chemicals have been released into the environment. These cleanups take place at abandoned waste sights, federal facilities, and where any storage tanks have leaked. Cleanups may also include the reuse of sites and redevelopment of natural habitats. The greatest EPA cleanup program is called the Superfund program. This program locates, investigates and cleans hazardous waste sites throughout the US.

Despite the ongoing issues about Superfunds being an effective means of proper regulations, Superfunds allow the usage of the land that once was contaminated. By allowing the Superfund some flexibility, the superfund should be monitored on some sort of level to follow through with the process of the cleanup. Limiting (and monitoring) the flexible contaminated levels prevents the land from becoming overly contaminated (harming humans and the environment) and suggests that the cleanup show improvements. By limiting the flexible requirements, it prevents the unwanted actions of the Superfund causing more damage then there was previously. For example; situations such as the Love Canal located in Niagara Falls, New York the Superfund stated the following: “Complaints about odors and residues were first reported at the site during the 1960’s, and increased in the 1970’s as the water level rose, bringing contaminated ground water to the surface” (EPA, 2012). The Superfund should also have limited regulations which monitor the amount of hazardous wastes that is allowed in the site. In some regards, the Superfund should show proper representation of the hazardous wastes increasingly residing. Without this type of representation (or exceeding the limits within) the cleanup process should be put to a halt and find

Each of these steps includes an element of site characterization and the potential for future use. These steps include: Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI) which investigates the site conditions, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) which determines the nature and extent of the contamination, Record of Decision (ROD) which explains the cleanup technologies that will be used at the site, Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) which is the final step in preparation for the implementation of site remedies, and then post cleanup activities, such as the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) which is conducted for many years after the site is remediated to ensure that the remedy remains effective. (EPA 2000)

The report finds BOD levels meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal standards. Results for suspended solids shows an opposite trend. Suspended solids increase throughout the course of the water treatment. This does not meet NPDES standards. Further suspended solids test will be needed to insure a minimal amount of error. If the same trend continues, the facility may need to be redesigned to meet NPDES standards.