Showing posts with label Contaminated Properties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Contaminated Properties. Show all posts

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Learning Too Late of the Perils in Gas Well Leases

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/drilling-down-fighting-over-oil-and-gas-well-leases.html
After Scott Ely and his father talked with salesmen from an energy company about signing the lease allowing gas drilling on their land in northeastern Pennsylvania, he said he felt certain it required the company to leave the property as good as new. So Mr. Ely said he was surprised several years later when the drilling company, Cabot Oil and Gas, informed them that rather than draining and hauling away the toxic drilling sludge stored in large waste ponds on the property, it would leave the waste, cover it with dirt and seed the area with grass. He knew that waste pond liners can leak, seeping contaminated waste.

Americans have signed millions of leases allowing companies to drill for oil and natural gas on their land in recent years. But some of these landowners — often in rural areas, and eager for quick payouts — are finding out too late what is, and what is not, in the fine print.

Energy company officials say that standard leases include language that protects landowners. But a review of more than 111,000 leases, addenda and related documents by The New York Times suggests otherwise:
¶ Fewer than half the leases require companies to compensate landowners for water contamination after drilling begins. And only about half the documents have language that lawyers suggest should be included to require payment for damages to livestock or crops.
¶ Most leases grant gas companies broad rights to decide where they can cut down trees, store chemicals, build roads and drill. Companies are also permitted to operate generators and spotlights through the night near homes during drilling.
¶ In the leases, drilling companies rarely describe to landowners the potential environmental and other risks that federal laws require them to disclose in filings to investors.
¶ Most leases are for three or five years, but at least two-thirds of those reviewed by The Times allow extensions without additional approval from landowners. If landowners have second thoughts about drilling on their land or want to negotiate for more money, they may be out of luck.

The leases — obtained through open records requests — are mostly from gas-rich areas in Texas, but also in Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

In Pennsylvania, Colorado and West Virginia, some landowners have had to spend hundreds of dollars a month to buy bottled water or maintain large tanks, known as water buffaloes, for drinking water in their front yards....
Thousands of landowners in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Texas have joined class action lawsuits claiming that they were paid less than they expected because gas companies deducted costs like hauling chemicals to the well site or transporting the gas to market.
...
To be sure, many landowners have earned small fortunes from drilling leases. Last year, natural gas companies paid more than $1.6 billion in lease and bonus payments to Pennsylvania landowners, according to a report commissioned by the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group. Chesapeake Energy, one of the largest natural gas companies, has paid more than $183.8 million in royalties in Texas this year, according to its Web site. Much of the money has gone to residents in rural areas where jobs are scarce and farmers and ranchers have struggled to stay afloat....
...
At least eight states specifically require companies to compensate landowners for damage to their properties or to negotiate with them about where wells will be drilled, even if the lease does not provide those protections.
...
Some landmen show up in poorer areas shortly before the holidays, offering cash on the spot for signing a lease. They might offer thousands of dollars per acre as a bonus to be paid shortly after the lease is signed. Royalties, which usually run between 12.5 percent and 20 percent of what the companies make for selling the gas, can mean tens of thousands of dollars per year for landowners.
...
In 2005, [Dave] Beinlich and his wife, Karen, signed a lease for $2 an acre per year for five years on 117 acres in Sullivan County in north-central Pennsylvania. They soon realized they had gotten far less money than their neighbors, so they planned on negotiating a new lease when theirs expired in 2010. A day before their lease term ended, no well had been drilled on their land, but the gas company parked a bulldozer nearby and started to survey an access road. A company official informed them that by moving equipment to the site, Chief Oil and Gas was preparing to drill and was therefore allowed to extend the lease indefinitely.

Lawyers say that drilling leases are not like other contracts. “You’re not buying a refrigerator or signing a car note,” said David McMahon, a lease lawyer in Charleston, W.Va., and co-founder of the West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization, adding that once a well is drilled, it can produce gas for decades, locking landowners into the lease terms. “With a gas lease, you’re permitting industrial activity in your backyard, and you’re starting a relationship that will affect the quality of living for you and your grandchildren for decades,” he said. Mr. McMahon and other lease lawyers say that unlike many contracts, oil and gas leases are covered by few consumer protection laws, in part because drilling has been most common in states with less regulation.
...
“When it comes to negotiation skills and understanding of lease terms, there is a gaping inequality between the average landman and the average citizen sitting across the table,” said Chris Csikszentmihalyi, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who created a Web site last year called the Landman Report Card that allows landowners to review landmen’s professionalism and tactics.

Some lawyers also say that there are major differences between what drilling companies tell landowners and what they must disclose to investors.
...
“It’s been one expense after another since our water went bad, and the company only has to cover part of it,” said Ronald Carter, 72, of Montrose, Pa. Mr. Carter and his wife, Jean, said they signed a lease in 2006 for a one-time fee of $25 per acre on their 75 acres and annual royalty payments of 12.5 percent. The Carters live on $3,500 a month, including the $1,500 per month they average in gas royalties. But they had to spend $7,000 to install a water purifier when their drinking supply became contaminated in 2009 after drilling near their property. The Carters joined a lawsuit with about a dozen neighbors ...
...
by Ian Urbina and Jo Craven McGinty
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/drilling-down-fighting-over-oil-and-gas-well-leases.html
The New York Times www.NYTimes.com
December 1, 2011

Monday, November 7, 2011

Resources For the Future Conference and Webcast: Managing the Risks of Shale Gas: Identifying a Pathway toward Responsible Development

http://www.rff.org/Events/Pages/Managing-the-Risks-of-Shale-Gas.aspx
For decades, natural gas has played an important role in electricity generation, industrial uses, and heating in the United States—and with recent improvements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) of shale formations, drillers can now access a vastly greater amount of gas at lower cost than in the past. The rapid growth in drilling and extraction, however, has resulted in tensions—from the community level to the federal policy level. Questions about the risks and safety of shale gas development continue, even as industry has improved disclosure, shared best practices, and assured the public that hydraulic fracturing techniques are safe.

Given these challenges, this year RFF’s Center for Energy Economics and Policy (CEEP) launched an initiative to identify the priority risks associated with shale gas development and recommend strategies for responsible development. The CEEP research team will survey expert opinion and public perceptions to determine the most significant risks and the behaviors of industry and regulators that influence those risks. Pairing these findings with analysis of existing state and federal policies and voluntary industry actions will lead to recommendations for how to improve the management of shale gas development.
Event Agenda


8:30 –  9:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast

9:00 –  9:15 a.m.
Welcome and Introduction
Phil Sharp, President, RFF


9:15 –  9:30 a.m.
Session 1: Issues in the Expansion of U.S. Domestic Natural Gas ResourcesAlan Krupnick, Director of the Center for Energy Economics and Policy, RFF

9:30 –  10:00 a.m.
Session 2: RFF’s Project: Managing the Risks of Shale Gas DevelopmentSheila Olmstead, Fellow, RFF

10:00 – 10:30 a.m.
Session 3: Introduction to the Shale Gas Development ProcessMukul Sharma, Professor and “Tex” Moncrief Centennial Chair in Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, University of Texas at Austin

10:30 – 10:45 a.m.
Break

10:45 – 11:15 a.m.
Session 4: Identifying the Sources of Fugitive Methane Associated with Shale Gas Development
Karlis Muehlenbachs, Professor, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta


11:15 – 11:45 a.m.
Session 5: Water Quality Issues Associated with Shale Gas Development
James Saiers, Professor of Hydrology, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University


11:45 a.m. – 12 p.m.
Final Q&A/Wrap-Up

Resources for the Future (RFF) www.RFF.org
First Floor Conference Center; 1616 P Street NW; Washington, D.C.

Registration is required. Please sign up to attend using their event registration system.
This seminar will also be webcast live beginning at 9:00 a.m. EST.
TwitterHave a question for the panel while watching the live webcast? Simply tweet your question of fewer than 140 characters and include the hashtag #AskRFF. Watch the Q&A at the end of the event to see if it is selected.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

UNEP Ogoniland Oil Assessment Reveals Extent of Environmental Contamination and Threats to Human Health - United Nations Environment Programme

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=2649&ArticleID=8827
The environmental restoration of Ogoniland could prove to be the world's most wide-ranging and long term oil clean-up exercise ever undertaken if contaminated drinking water, land, creeks and important ecosystems such as mangroves are to be brought back to full, productive health.

A major new independent scientific assessment, carried out by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), shows that pollution from over 50 years of oil operations in the region has penetrated further and deeper than many may have supposed. 

The assessment has been unprecedented. Over a 14-month period, the UNEP team examined more than 200 locations, surveyed 122 kilometres of pipeline rights of way, reviewed more than 5,000 medical records and engaged over 23,000 people at local community meetings. 

Detailed soil and groundwater contamination investigations were conducted at 69 sites, which ranged in size from 1,300 square metres (Barabeedom-K.dere, Gokana local government area (LGA) to 79 hectares (Ajeokpori-Akpajo, Eleme LGA). 

Altogether more than 4,000 samples were analyzed, including water taken from 142 groundwater monitoring wells drilled specifically for the study and soil extracted from 780 boreholes.

Key Findings:
Some areas, which appear unaffected at the surface, are in reality severely contaminated underground and action to protect human health and reduce the risks to affected communities should occur without delay says UNEP's Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland.
 
In at least 10 Ogoni communities where drinking water is contaminated with high levels of hydrocarbons, public health is seriously threatened, according to the assessment that was released today. 

In one community, at Nisisioken Ogale, in western Ogoniland, families are drinking water from wells that is contaminated with benzene- a known carcinogen-at levels over 900 times above World Health Organization guidelines. The site is close to a Nigerian National Petroleum Company pipeline. 

UNEP scientists found an 8 cm layer of refined oil floating on the groundwater which serves the wells. This was reportedly linked to an oil spill which occurred more than six years ago. 

While the report provides clear operational recommendations for addressing the widespread oil pollution across Ogoniland, UNEP recommends that the contamination in Nisisioken Ogale warrants emergency action ahead of all other remediation efforts. 

While some on-the-ground results could be immediate, overall the report estimates that countering and cleaning up the pollution and catalyzing a sustainable recovery of Ogoniland could take 25 to 30 years.
...
Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said the report provided the scientific basis on which a long overdue and concerted environmental restoration of Ogoniland, a kingdom in Nigeria's Niger Delta region, can begin.

"It is UNEP's hope that the findings can break the decades of deadlock in the region and provide the foundation upon which trust can be built and action undertaken to remedy the multiple health and sustainable development issues facing people in Ogoniland. In addition it offers a blueprint for how the oil industry-and public regulatory authorities- might operate more responsibly in Africa and beyond at a time of increasing production and exploration across many parts of the Continent," said Mr Steiner.

Among its other findings are:-
  • Control and maintenance of oilfield infrastructure in Ogoniland has been and remains inadequate: the Shell Petroleum Development Company's own procedures have not been applied, creating public health and safety issues.
  • The impact of oil on mangrove vegetation has been disastrous. Oil pollution in many intertidal creeks has left mangroves-nurseries for fish and natural pollution filters- denuded of leaves and stems with roots coated in a layer of bitumen-type substance sometimes one centimetre or more thick.
  • The five highest concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons detected in groundwater exceed 1 million micrograms per litre (µg/l) - compared to the Nigerian standard for groundwater of 600 µg/l.
  • When an oil spill occurs on land, fires often break out, killing vegetation and creating a crust over the land, making remediation or revegetation difficult. At some sites, a crust of ash and tar has been in place for several decades.
  • The surface water throughout the creeks in and surrounding Ogoniland contain hydrocarbons. Floating layers of oil vary from thick black oil to thin sheens.
  • Despite community concerns, the results show that fish consumption in Ogoniland, either of those caught locally or purchased from markets, was not posing a health risk.
The report says that fish tend to leave polluted areas in search of cleaner water. However, the fisheries sector is suffering due to the destruction of fish habitat and highly persistent contamination of many creeks. Where entrepreneurs have established fish farms for example their businesses have been ruined by an "ever-present" layer of floating oil.
  • The Ogoni community is exposed to hydrocarbons every day through multiple routes. While the impact of individual contaminated land sites tends to be localized, air pollution related to oil industry operations is all pervasive and affecting the quality of life of close to one million people.
  • Artisanal refining (a practice whereby crude oil illegally obtained from oil industry operations is refined in primitive stills), is endangering lives and ultimately causing pockets of environmental devastation in Ogoniland and neighbouring areas.
Remote sensing revealed that in Bodo West, in Bonny LGA, an increase in artisanal refining between 2007 and 2011 has been accompanied by a 10% loss of healthy mangrove cover - or over 307,380 square metres.
  • Remediation by enhanced natural attenuation (RENA) - a way of boosting the ability of naturally-occuring microbes to breakdown oil and so far the only remediation method observed by UNEP in Ogoniland - has not proven to be effective.
Currently, SPDC applies this technique on the land surface layer only, based on the assumption that given the kind of oil concerned, factors such as temperature and an underlying layer of clay, hydrocarbons will not move deeper. However, in 49 cases UNEP observed hydrocarbons in soil at depths of at least 5 m.

Next Steps/Recommendations
Through a combination of approaches, individual contaminated land areas in Ogoniland can be cleaned up within five years, while the restoration of heavily-impacted mangrove stands and swamplands will take up to 30 years. 

However, according to the report, all sources of ongoing contamination must be brought to an end before the clean-up of the creeks, sediments and mangroves can begin. 

The report recommends establishing three new institutions in Nigeria to support a comprehensive environmental restoration exercise. 

The report outlined $1,012,448,650 in preliminary estimated costs as follows
1. Emergency Measures (80 % for providing alternative drinking water to communities with contaminated water supply) - $63,750,000
2. Clean up of Land contamination - $611,466,100
3. Clean up of Benzene and MTBE Contamination and Nsisioken Ogale - $50,000,000
4. Clean up of Sediments - $20,000,000
5. Restoration of Artisanal Refining Sites - $99,452,700
6. Mangrove restoration and rehabilitation - $25,500,000
7. Surveillance and Monitoring - $21,468,000
8. Ogoniland Restoration Authority - $44,000,000
9. Center for Excellence in Restoration - $18,600,000
10. Alternative Employment to those in Artisanal Refining - $10,000,000
11. Third party Verification and International Expert Support to implementation recommendations @ 5 % - $48,211,840

The final clean-up costs are likely to be different, indeed much higher, for the following reasons:
1. Full environmental restoration of Ogoniland will be a project which will take around 25-30 years to complete, after the ongoing pollution has been brought to an end. The current cost estimates are operational costs of the new institutions over the first five years.
2. The clean-up costs for contaminated soil, a key component of the overall costs, will depend substantially on the remediation standards set. A more stringent standard will lead to higher
clean-up costs.
3. The cost of clean-up of groundwater is not included in this costing (except for Nsisioken Ogale). The clean-up objectives, standards and target will first need to be decided before a volume estimate and associated costing can be attempted.
4. No estimate is given for the clean-up of surface water. It is assumed that once the ongoing input of oil into the surface water is stopped, natural process will flush the floating oil. However, in locations where there is not enough water exchange, intervention will be needed for the clean-up.
5. The response and clean-up costs for any new spills, or newly discovered spills, simply cannot be estimated
6. Land will need to be leased to establish the Integrated Contaminated Soil Treatment Centre and mini treatment centres in situ. The cost of land acquisition is not included.
7. The report recommends a set of asset integrity actions for the oil industry, which include better securing of the facilities and proper decommissioning of abandoned facilities. These costs also are not included above.
8. A major cost item will be the restoration of mangroves and forests within the creeks around Ogoniland. The current estimates are limited to a pilot area of impacted mangroves and forests around the Bodo West oil field facilities.

The Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland report is available online at: www.unep.org/nigeria
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) www.UNEP.org
Press Release dated August 4, 2011

Saturday, June 4, 2011

External Benefits of Brownfield Redevelopment: An Applied Urban General Equilibrium Analysis

http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cpb:discus:178&r=ure
This paper models external benefits of the transformation of an inner city industrial site into a residential area in an urban general equilibrium framework.

Does brownfield redevelopment warrant government support? We model external benefits of the transformation of an inner city industrial site into a residential area in an urban general equilibrium framework, focusing on the removal of a local nuisance, the exploitation of agglomeration economies and preservation of open space at the urban fringe. These benefits are compared to the value of transformed land, which accrues to the developer. A numerical application indicates that local nuisance and agglomeration effects may push social returns significantly beyond these private returns. However, depending on the price elasticity of local housing demand, the amount of preserved greenfield land may be small and it only generates additional benefits to the extent that direct land use policies fail to internalize its value as open space.
...
Results
...
The number of additional households in the city equals 4814 in the baseline project and internal benefits amount to almost 17 million euros annually, corresponding to a present value of 330 million euros at a discount rate of 5%. The external benefit of removing a nuisance to surrounding residents, based on the estimates from De Vor and De Groot (2010), constitutes 10% of these internal benefits and external agglomeration benefits are worth another 15%. Hence, total benefits are substantially larger than what an owner of the site would consider in her investment decision. The benefit to new consumers is negligible compared to the internal benefits, yet there is a substantial transfer from landowners to consumers who lived in the city already prior to the project.

The internal benefits, the agglomeration benefits and the transfer rise more or less proportionally with the size of the redeveloped site. However, the relative importance of removing the nuisance declines. The reason is that this effect is only external to the extent that it crosses the boundary of the industrial site, whereas within this boundary it is fully internalised in land rents. For a larger (circular) site, the area within is larger compared to the area at the fringe, so the owner will take a larger share of the nuisance into account.
...
The less elastic demand, the lower the direct benefits, but roughly half of this loss is offset by a rise in inframarginal surplus. The transfer falls with demand elasticity. In the case of infinitely elastic demand, in which tastes for living in the city do not vary across households, inframarginal surplus and transfer are absent. Agglomeration benefits rise slightly with demand elasticity and the nuisance effect does not depend on it at all.
Agglomeration benefits rise proportionally with the scale elasticity and [there is] ... a minor positive impact on internal benefits.
...
With a demand elasticity of -2, redevelopment of a brownfield site of about 100 hectares preserves an area of open space at the urban fringe of about 50 hectares. The resulting benefit is negligible if its value is fully internalized through land use policy at the urban fringe. If the value of open space is twice as high as the development tax ..., then the additional benefit rises to about 15% of the internal benefits. The amount of open space that is preserved and the benefit this generates fall with demand elasticity. In the limiting case of infinitely elastic demand, the redevelopment project does not reduce development at the urban fringe at all.

The presence of agglomeration externalities renders development at the urban fringe more attractive, which is partly reflected in the price of land at newly developed sites. Hence, with a demand elasticity of -2 and a scale elasticity of 0.02, redevelopment of the same brownfield site of about 100 hectares now preserves an area of open space of only about 30 hectares. If demand is sufficiently elastic, then the project may even increase development at the urban fringe – about 120 hectares in the case of an infinite elasticity. This yields additional costs rather than benefits if planning policies at the fringe are not capable of internalizing the value of open space....Agglomeration benefits are also affected by adjustment of the urban fringe. Preservation of open space means that fewer households enter the city so that the rise in productivity is lower than in a scenario in which it is held exogenous. In contrast, the extension of the urban fringe that occurs if demand is sufficiently elastic leads to higher agglomeration benefits. Hence, it may even be desirable to impose a development tax below the value of open space, since its loss is compensated by a productivity gain.

by Niels Vermeer 1 and Wouter Vermeulen 1 and 2
1. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis
2. VU University, Spatial Economics Research Centre (SERC)
CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis www.cpb.nlvia REPEC Research Papers in Economics www.REPEC.org
Discussion Paper Number 178;
May, 2011
Keywords: brownfield redevelopment, land use externalities, urban general equilibrium, cost-benefit analysis

Friday, June 3, 2011

Superfund: Information on the Nature and Costs of Cleanup Activities at Three Landfills in the Gulf Coast Region

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11287r.pdf
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that one in four Americans lives within 3 miles of a contaminated site, many of which pose serious risks to human health and the environment. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) provided the federal government with authority to respond to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances and created a trust fund to provide for certain cleanup activities. Under CERCLA, EPA established the Superfund program to address the threats that contaminated sites pose. Although EPA has paid for the cleanup of many of these sites through the Superfund program, funding for these cleanups has diminished in recent years. In 2010, we reported that EPA’s estimated costs to clean up existing contaminated sites exceed the Superfund program’s current funding levels and that some sites have not received sufficient funding for cleanup to proceed in the most cost-efficient manner.  Additionally, in July 2009, we reported that EPA does not collect sufficient information on the cost of cleanup activities at Superfund sites and recommended, among other things, that EPA assess and improve the data it collects on the status and cost of cleanups.

EPA coordinates the cleanup of Superfund sites by identifying sites potentially requiring cleanup action and placing eligible sites on its National Priorities List (NPL). EPA may compel the parties responsible for contaminating these sites to clean them up, or the agency may, using resources from the trust fund established by CERCLA, conduct cleanups itself and seek reimbursement from responsible parties. In some cases, EPA may not be able to obtain reimbursement because the agency cannot identify a responsible party or the responsible party or parties may be insolvent or may no longer exist.

One category of contaminated sites—landfills and other waste disposal facilities—made up more than one-third of the 1,397 sites EPA placed on the NPL from 1983 through 2007, and EPA’s expenditures at these 511 sites totaled about $3.6 billion through fiscal year 2007.3 According to EPA, landfill sites on the NPL generally share similar characteristics and present similar threats to the environment. For example, these sites generally exhibit contamination in various media, such as soil, surface water, or groundwater, and many landfills at Superfund sites contain hazardous waste that may contaminate nearby soil or water.
Further, some have argued that landfills used for the disposal of debris created by disasters may also contain hazardous waste that could have long-term, negative environmental impacts. Consequently, concerns have been raised by various studies and environmental groups about the potential for such landfills to become Superfund sites. For instance, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a Louisiana emergency order authorized some potentially hazardous materials to be disposed of in landfills permitted to receive construction and demolition debris rather than in landfills with liners approved for such waste. Studies by a Louisiana State University research institute and an environmental engineering firm found that these categories of waste can introduce hazardous materials into landfills, increasing the likelihood of pollution.

In this context, you asked us to review issues related to the cost to clean up the Agriculture Street Landfill Superfund site, which received debris from Hurricane Betsy in 1965, and other Superfund sites involving landfills in the Gulf Coast region where cleanup has been completed. Our objectives were to determine (1) what is known about the nature and costs of the cleanup activities at Superfund landfill sites and (2) the costs to clean up the Agriculture Street Landfill site and two additional selected Superfund landfill sites in the Gulf Coast region, and the key factors that influenced these costs.

To determine what is known about the nature and costs of the cleanup activities at Superfund landfill sites, we reviewed relevant statutes and EPA regulations, guidance, and studies. We also interviewed EPA officials and responsible parties’ representatives. To determine the costs to clean up the three Superfund landfill sites in the Gulf Coast region and the key factors that influenced these costs, we first obtained data from EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, and we also interviewed EPA officials to identify landfills (1) that are located within 10 miles of the Gulf of Mexico, (2) that have reached construction complete status or have been deleted from the NPL, and (3) for which cleanup cost data are available. In addition to the Agriculture Street Landfill in Louisiana, the Beulah and Taylor Road landfills in Florida met these criteria. Second, we obtained cleanup cost data from EPA and responsible parties and analyzed them to determine the total cleanup costs and the key factors that influenced those costs at each site. We also reviewed relevant documentation and interviewed EPA and responsible party officials to assess the reliability of the cleanup cost data for each site. We tried to obtain supporting explanations and documentation to verify these data but were unable to obtain complete information for all three sites. Consequently, we have varying confidence in the reliability of cost data from the three sites: while we believe that most of the data components are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report, we were unable to fully determine the reliability of some components of the Taylor Road Landfill cleanup cost data.

Nevertheless, because these are the only available data, we included them in our estimated cleanup costs at the site. Finally, we interviewed EPA officials and responsible parties’ representatives about the history, contamination, cleanup activities completed, and current status of each of the three landfills, and we visited each site.
...
While only limited cleanup cost data are available, we estimated that the costs to clean up three Superfund landfill sites in the Gulf Coast region—the Agriculture Street, Beulah, and Taylor Road landfill sites—ranged from about $13 million to about $55 million. This range is largely the result of differences among the sites in such factors as site geology and proximity to residential areas.
...
EPA spent about $55 million to clean up the Agriculture Street Landfill Superfund site in New Orleans, Louisiana. Because EPA found that extensive lead contamination in soil at the site posed an immediate risk to nearby residents, the agency completed most of its cleanup activities as removal actions. We estimated that these actions—which included removing contaminated playground equipment, excavating contaminated soil, placing a landfill cap, and installing clean soil—represented approximately 50 percent of EPA’s cleanup costs at the site. Available documentation shows that the remaining costs were related to litigation and community relations activities, among other things.
















We estimated that cleanup of the Beulah Landfill Superfund site near Pensacola, Florida, cost Escambia County—the responsible party for the site—about $12.5 million.13 The cleanup activities we identified included formally closing two landfill areas that lacked caps to prevent storm water from mingling with the landfill contents. According to Escambia County officials, a major component of the closure costs was the clay and synthetic material needed to adequately cap these landfill areas. Available county documents show that these cap materials cost approximately $4 million; the county spent the remaining $8.5 million on, among other things, management and oversight of the landfill closure as well as annual operations and maintenance activities.

U.S. Government Accountability Office www.GAO.gov

The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate
February 18, 2011