[en] It was observed in the July 1992 issue of this Journal that a plain reading of the Constitution's prohibition on open-quotes ex post factoclose quotes suggests that some environmental statutes such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) conflict with Constitutional principles. Like many Constitutional principles, however, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution's bar on ex post facto laws has a long history. The Court has consistently interpreted this clause as limited to criminal or penal statutes. This article discusses the history of the ex post facto clause, the retroactive application of CERCLA and RCRA, the decision that retroactive application of CERCLA and RCRA does not violate the ex post facto clause, and laws, regulations, and guidance. 27 refs

[en] This document was prepared as an issue paper for the Department of Energy to serve in the decision-making process for environmental restoration activities. The paper compares cleanup requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and those currently proposed under Subpart S of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The history and regulatory framework for both laws is discussed, and the process for environmental restoration actions under both regulatory programs is compared and contrasted. Contaminants regulated under CERCLA and RCRA differ significantly in that radioactive contaminants are subject to Environmental Protection Agency jurisdiction only under CERCLA. The DOE has the jurisdiction to implement radioactive waste management and cleanup levels under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) at nuclear weapons facilities. For sites with significant amounts of contaminants which are radioactive only, cleanup under RCRA can present significant advantages, since the DOE can then manage restoration activities under its own authority. There are, conversely several significant advantages for a remedial action being conducted at a CERCLA site recognized on the National Priorities List (NPL). Other provisions in the CERCLA remediation and the RCRA corrective action process offer both advantages and disadvantages related to DOE environmental restoration programs. This paper presents a discussion of significant issues which should be considered in such negotiations

[en] This decision document presents the selected remedial for the Ford Building Waste Unit (FBWU), in Aiken, South Carolina, which was chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and, to the extent practical, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the Administrative Record File for this specific RCRA/CERCLA site

[en] Conducting a community relations effort in a community which is home to a Superfund site is a formidable challenge. Any education press, however appropriate, quickly falls victim to doubt, mistrust of fears of the very public intended to be served by the effort. While each site is uniquely different, the issues raised by affected communities in one part of the country are strikingly similar to those raised in other parts. Those most involved must join those most affected in seeking meaningful solutions and in building the trust that is so vital in moving forward with Superfund

[en] Ever since the US Department of Energy (DOE) created its Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1974, there has been a community relations program. The community relations effort has grown as FUSRAP has grown. With 20 of 46 sites now cleaned up, considerable experience in working with FUSRAP stakeholders has been gained. Why not share that experience with others who labor on the Superfund sites? Many similarities exist between the Superfund sites and FUSRAP. FUSRAP is a large, multiple-site environmental restoration program. The challenges range from small sites requiring remedial actions measurable in weeks to major sites requiring the full remedial investigation/feasibility study process. The numerous Superfund sites throughout the United States offer the same diversity, both geographically and technically. But before DOE offers FUSRAP's community relations experience as a model, it needs to make clear that this will be a realistic model. As experiences are shared, DOE will certainly speak of the efforts that achieved its goals. But many of the problems that DOE encountered along the way will also be related. FUSRAP relies on a variety of one- and two-way communication techniques for involving stakeholders in the DOE decision-making process. Some of the techniques and experiences from the case studies are presented

[en] Preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) are useful for risk assessment and decision making at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites. PRGs are upper concentration limits for specific chemicals in specific environmental media that are anticipated to protect human health or the environment. They can be used for multiple remedial investigations at multiple facilities. In addition to media and chemicals of potential concern, the development of PRGs generally requires some knowledge or anticipation of future land use. In Preliminary Remediation Goals for Use at the U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office (Energy Systems 1995), PRGs intended to protect human health were developed with guidance from Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B (RAGS) (EPA 1991). However, no guidance was given for PRGs based on ecological risk. The numbers that appear in this volume have, for the most part, been extracted from toxicological benchmarks documents for Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and have previously been developed by ORNL. The sources of the quantities, and many of the uncertainties associated with their derivation, are described in this technical memorandum

[en] This paper addresses the decreasing number of persons interested and participating in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or open-quotes Superfundclose quotes process. It also looks at communications technology to bring people back into participation in the Superfund process. The material studied and the technologies evaluated involve the Environmental Restoration Program at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The conclusions are probably valid for most DOE Superfund activities. Where has the public gone? The public has taken an interest in issues that they perceive have greater impact on their quality of life and that have an adverse impact on the environment, such as the shipment and storage of spent nuclear fuel. Will communications technology bring them back? Technology can do many things: it can reduce cost; it can allow quicker access to and from the public; it can offer more information; and it can increase interest because of its novelty for short periods of time, but it will not, in and of its own, create public involvement

[en] In November of 1990, in one of its last acts in the session, Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The Clean Air Act (CAA) had remained virtually unchanged since the last CAA amendments in 1977. Based on the ineffectiveness and complete lack of coverage in some areas, the CAA has been modified and expanded. The 1990 amendments expand the act to cover additional problem areas and take different approaches to solving old problems. This paper highlights the major provisions of the 1990 amendments and discusses the possible impact on industry. Before going into the highlights of the amendments an explanation of the structure of the amendments and how they fit into the amended act is needed. The 1990 amendments consist of eleven titles, see Table One

[en] 'How clean is clean?' is a question commonly raised in the remediation of contaminated soils. To help with the answer, criteria are proposed to serve as guidelines for remedial actions and to define a clean-up level such that the remaining contaminant residuals in the soil will not violate the Drinking Water Standards (DWS). The equations for computing those criteria are developed from the principle of conservation of mass and are functions of the maximum concentration level in the water (MCL) and the sorption coefficient. A multiplier, ranging from 10 to 1000, is also factored into the soil standard equation to reflect the effectiveness of various remediation techniques. Maximum allowable concentration in the soil (MSCL) is presented for several contaminants which are being regulated at the present time. Future modifications are recommended for better estimates of the MSCLs as additional transport mechanisms are incorporated to account for other potentially dominant effects

[en] The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is the U.S. government program started in 1974 to identify, investigate and clean up or control sites that became contaminated as a result of the nation's early atomic programs. The FUSRAP Maywood (New Jersey) Superfund Site (FMSS) consists of 92 designated property parcels known as vicinity properties. 61 Trudy Drive in Lodi, New Jersey is one such vicinity property. Construction planning for a recently-completed remedial excavation at 61 Trudy Drive was predicated on a fundamental question: to remediate the property with the existing home remaining in place or to demolish the exiting home. Answering this question involved detailed engineering and cost analyses, programmatic considerations, and stakeholder input. 61 Trudy Drive was originally addressed under FUSRAP in 1985 by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). However, subsequent remediation on an adjacent property by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1998 suggested that residual contamination remained at depth at 61 Trudy. The property owner at that time declined to allow FUSRAP access to the property. However, a property transfer in 2012 presented USACE with an opportunity to address this property. Characterization of the property began in 2013; remedial activities were completed in 2015. The 61 Trudy Drive remediation required an intensive stakeholder communications program tailored for several audiences, including the affected property owner, local government officials and the neighboring community This paper will present the FUSRAP history at 61 Trudy Drive, to provide context for recent FUSRAP actions there. It will then focus on the challenges and complexities of performing environmental remediation in a suburban residential setting, focusing on both construction and communications. (authors)