Stauffer critics eye EPA switch

The EPA abandons a "mound-and-cap'' method in Colorado. It's unclear whether it will do the same in Pinellas.

By ROBERT FARLEY

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 17, 2000

In a major reversal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday it will abandon a controversial method of trying to seal a Superfund site in Colorado, but it did not say whether it will give up a similar plan for the Stauffer Superfund site near Tarpon Springs.

The EPA's Tim Fields acknowledged that the agency made a mistake by trying the so-called "mound-and-cap" method on toxic soil at a Denver Superfund site. It now plans to haul the waste to a licensed disposal site.

"We were not confident that was going to provide for the long-term protection of the community," said Fields, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

In North Pinellas County, opponents of the EPA's mound-and-cap proposal for the Stauffer Superfund site on the Pasco-Pinellas border have closely watched the Shattuck Chemical Co. plan because it is the only site in the country contaminated with radioactive soil in a populated area where such a mound-and-cap remedy has been used.

"If it's not safe for Shattuck, that's 100-fold true for us," said Tarpon Springs resident Mary Mosley, a longtime opponent of the Stauffer cleanup plan.

The mound-and-cap method entails piling up 300,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sealing it with protective layers of soil, sand, a man-made liner and clay.

The EPA decision at the Shattuck site came largely due to the involvement of National EPA Ombudsman Bob Martin, who is charged with second-guessing EPA projects. Martin's investigation of Shattuck concluded the mound-and-cap method there was flawed and that the waste should be moved to a licensed toxic waste dump site.

But Martin, who is reviewing the Stauffer case at the request of local residents, cautioned against reading too much into the Shattuck decision.

"An overall conclusion would be premature," he said.

Martin still has not released his recommendation for Stauffer. Further investigation is necessary, he said, to determine whether recent changes the EPA has made to the cleanup plan will satisfy concerns about such things as whether the monolithic pile might trigger a sinkhole and send the toxic contaminants directly into the area's drinking water supply.

Fields said the EPA considered trying to fix the Shattuck remedy and concluded that would cost about $10-million. Fixing it would have included putting on a new cap, installing a better monitoring system to detect groundwater contamination and performing further risk assessment, he said.

Instead, he said, the mound will be excavated and hauled away to a licensed facility. That is expected to cost about $21-million, and negotiations will begin next week with Shattuck to determine how much of that the company must pay, Fields said.

Fields said the decision's ramifications, if any, on the EPA's posture toward cleanup of the Stauffer site remains to be seen.

Fields also cautioned that while Stauffer and Shattuck share many similarities, there also are some significant differences.

Although radiation levels at Stauffer are lower than at the Shattuck site, Stauffer has six times the amount of contaminated soil as Shattuck.

"We will evaluate the similarities and differences and make the right decision for the citizens of Tarpon Springs," Fields said.

The EPA has asked U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew to extend the public comment period on the proposed cleanup plan another 30 days.

"I believe we'll make a decision about what we're going to do (with Stauffer) within the next 30 days," Fields said.

Several area residents said they were hopeful, though wary, the Shattuck decision would translate to a new cleanup proposal for Stauffer.

"As far as the implications for us, I can only hope since the EPA turned around and made a responsible decision there, it is a sign they'll be equally responsible here," said Heather Malinowski, secretary of the Pinellas-Pasco Technical Advisory Group, a local citizens watchdog group also known as Pi-Pa-TAG.

Pi-Pa-TAG's position is that the Stauffer waste ought to be removed.

"We didn't start off saying that," Malinowski said. "But as time has gone by, they (EPA officials) have been so non-communicative."

Now, she said, Pi-Pa-TAG no longer believes EPA officials when they say the mound-and-cap remedy would be safe.

Mosely said the Shattuck decision should serve notice that to Stauffer remedy is suspect.

"We have a lot more things that could happen here," including hurricanes and sinkholes, Mosely said. Also, she said, the Stauffer site sits right on the Anclote River.

Among the flaws identified by the ombudsman's office at Shattuck was that it would be impossible to tell whether toxic wastes were leaking from the capped structure until catastrophe struck.

Said Mosely: "If they can't monitor the groundwater there, why do they think they can do it here?"

Residents believe the mound-and-cap plan, estimated to cost $9.7 million, has been proposed because it would be much cheaper than hauling the waste to a disposal facility.

But Mosley believes that hauling the soil away is the right thing to do.

"That's the only solution for this site," she said.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.