The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General has determined the EPA’s
oversight and implementation of institutional controls for the clean-up of the American Creosote Works Inc. Superfund site on J Street near the Pensacola Yacht Club and Sanders Beach are not sufficient to prevent potential exposure to contamination.
-
- The EPA allocated approximately $40 million in Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funds for the final remediation of this site.
- The Inspector General issued its report on Monday, April 15.
Without strong institutional controls and effective communication, the public remains at risk of exposure to residual contamination in the groundwater and soil from the ACW Superfund site.
What are the failures:
- EPA’s institutional controls did not prevent well drilling or require groundwater well plugging and abandonment.
- EPA also did not plan to secure permission from private property owners to plug and abandon wells that it encountered during remediation, potentially wasting at least $1.3 million in remediation funds.
- For contaminated soil, the EPA did not implement institutional controls to prevent potential exposure to off-facility parcel contamination or to inform the wider public of the extent of contamination.
- EPA does not plan to implement institutional controls on these parcels after remediation to prevent the disturbance of unremediated soil, potentially wasting $5.4 million in IIJA funds allocated for the parcels’ remediation.
The Inspector General also criticized the EPA’s communications:
- The EPA missed opportunities to communicate the risks associated with off-facility impacted parcels to the public using the public-facing site profile webpage. Off-facility impacted parcels is the phrase used to refer to dioxin-contaminated soil on surrounding neighborhood parcels of land outside of the former facility’s boundaries.
- Information included in the physical record repository and published on the site profile webpage about site contamination and remedial activities, institutional controls, site boundaries, and public responsibilities is inaccurate, difficult to find and understand, or vague.
Recommendations – noted what Office of Land and Emergency Management agreed and disagreed to do.
1. Seek to secure permission from private property owners to plug and abandon groundwater wells encountered during remediation of Operable Unit 3 of the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site to help protect the $1.3 million in Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding allocated for remediation. – Agreed
2. Work with the City of Pensacola in Florida to establish a system indicator to identify contaminated areas during the construction permitting process for properties in Operable Unit 3 of the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site. – Agreed
3. Identify and work with amenable private property owners within Operable Unit 3 of the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site and appropriate local governments to establish restrictive covenants on contaminated private parcels to prevent the disturbance and removal of impacted soil. – Disagreed, Unresolved
4. Seek to establish formal agreements with state and local government stakeholders to
implement and oversee institutional controls for the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola
Plant) Superfund site, documenting a shared understanding of the intent of any interim and
permanent institutional controls. – Disagreed, Unresolved
5. Use a tracking or accountability tool, like an Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance
Plan or the “Institutional Controls” module in the Superfund Enterprise Management System, to
clarify the purpose and evaluate the performance of institutional controls at the American
Creosote Works, Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site. – Agreed
6. As required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and LiabilityAct implementing regulations and EPA guidance, ensure the physical administrative record for the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site is complete. – Disagreed, Unresolved
7. Update the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site’s Community Involvement Plan to accurately communicate the location of the local repository for the physical administrative record. – Agreed
8. Prominently display the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site’s institutional control information on the EPA’s site profile webpage so that the information is thorough and consistent and clearly articulates public risk associated with the site. – Agreed
For assistant administrator for Land and Emergency Management:
9. Update the Superfund geographic information system database site file for the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site to accurately reflect the extent of contamination and the Operable Unit 3 boundaries.
The American Creosote Works operated from 1902 until 1981, when the company filed for bankruptcy. Before 1950, creosote was the primary wood preservative chemical, and after 1950 pentachlorophenol (PCP) became the preferred chemical. Prior to 1970, operators discharged liquid process wastes into two onsite, unlined, percolation ponds which were allowed to overflow into Bayou Chico and Pensacola Bay. Later, workers drew wastewaters off the ponds periodically and discharged them into designated “spillage areas” on site.
EPA placed the site on the Superfund program’s National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983 because of contaminated soil and groundwater resulting from facility operations.
