Abstract
Some environmental contamination simply cannot be cleaned up. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has rules for determining when this is the case (i.e., when technical impracticability precludes cleanup). In such cases, an alternative response must still be health protective and containing. One condition that often leads to a conclusion of technical impracticability is when dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs, e.g., tarry, oily, or otherwise immiscible liquid chemicals) are present in the subsurface. When DNAPL is known to exist, it might be more efficient to declare technical impracticability and move to “plan B” rather than wasting time and money on a “plan A” cleanup destined for failure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Malcolm Pirnie (2004) Technical Impracticability Assessments: Guidelines for Site Applicability and Implementation Phase II Report. Prepared for U.S. Army Environment Center. March
National Research Council (NRC) (2003) Environmental cleanup at navy facilities: adaptive Site Management. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
USEPA (1990) A guide to selecting superfund remedial actions. Directive 9355.0-27FS. April
USEPA (1993a) Guidance for evaluating the technical impracticability of ground-water restoration. Interim Final. Directive 9234. 2–25. September
USEPA (1993b) Evaluation of the likelihood of DNAPL presence at NPL sites. EPA 540R-93-073. September
USEPA (1995) Consistent implementation of the FY 1993 guidance on technical impracticability of ground-water restoration at superfund sites. OSWER Directive 9200. 4–14. January 19
USEPA (1997) Rules of thumb for superfund remedy selection. EPA 540-R-97-013. August
USEPA (1998) Evaluation of subsurface engineered barriers at waste sites. EPA 542-R-98-005. August
USEPA (1999) Use of monitored natural attenuation at superfund, RCRA corrective action, and underground storage tank sites. Directive 9200. 4–17 pp April 21
USEPA (2003) The DNAPL remediation challenge: is there a case for source depletion? (by Expert Panel on DNAPL Remediation) December
USEPA (2008) 40 CFR Part 300 – National oil and hazardous substances contingency plan (at 40 CFR Section 300.430)
USEPA (2011) Memorandum re: clarification of OSWER’s 1995 technical impracticability waiver policy. OSWER Directive 9355. 5–32. September
USEPA (2012) Summary of technical impracticability waivers at national priorities list sites. OSWER Directive 9230. 2–24. August
USEPA (2013a) National priorities list website. May 24. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/. Accessed 1 Aug 2013
USEPA (2013b) National priorities list (NPL) sites by agency website. May 31. http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/ff/nplagency2.htm. Accessed 1 Aug 2013
U.S. Air Force (2006) Incorporating technical impracticability into the air force cleanup program. March 22
U.S. Congress (1986) Superfund amendments and reauthorization Act of 1986. Public Law 99–499. October 17
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shifrin, N. (2014). Technical Impracticability. In: Environmental Perspectives. SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06278-5_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06278-5_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06277-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06278-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)