Area-Wide Soil
Contamination Task Force Report
June 30, 2003
The original Adobe document was converted
to MS Word for this posting:
Area-Wide Soil Contamination
June 30, 2003
Submitted to:
Washington State Department of Agriculture
Washington State Department of Ecology
Washington State Department of Health
Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
Prepared with the assistance of:
Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd.
Landau Associates, Inc.
Hubbard Gray Consulting, Inc.
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Report
Steven Kelley
Task Force Co-chair
Stephen Gerritson
Task Force Co-chair
Katherine Bridwell
Jon DeJong
Loren Dunn
Jim Hazen
Steve Marek
Scott McKinnie
Laura Mrachek
Raymond Paolella
Frank Peryea, Ph.D.
Randy Phillips
Marcia Riggers
Paul Roberts
Ken Stanton
Craig Trueblood
Michael Wearne
Washington State Department of Ecology Contact:
Dawn A. Hooper, (360) 407-7182 / dhoo461@ecy.wa.gov
Facilitation Team Contact:
Elizabeth McManus, (206) 447-1805 / elizabeth.mcmanus@ross-assoc.com
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force
June 30, 2003
Valoria H. Loveland, Director
Washington State Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 42560
Olympia, WA 98504-2560
Tom Fitzsimmons, Director
Washington State Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Mary Selecky, Secretary
Washington State Department of Health
P.O. Box 47890
Olympia, WA 98504-7890
Martha Choe, Director
Washington State Department of Community, Trade and
Economic
Development
PO Box 42525
Olympia WA 98504-2525
Re: Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Final Report
Dear Agency Directors:
We are pleased to present you with the final report of
the Area-Wide Soil
Contamination Task Force, chartered in January 2002 to
offer advice about a
statewide strategy to respond to low-to-moderate level
arsenic and lead soil
contamination (so-called area-wide soil contamination)
in Washington State.
Our Task Force has worked diligently over the last 18
months to understand
and consider the issues and to develop recommendations
that advance a
shared set of guiding principles. Task Force
deliberations focused on
understanding the nature and extent of area-wide soil
contamination, making
recommendations about effective, practical, and
affordable steps individuals
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Report
June 30, 2003
Page 2
and organizations might choose to take to reduce their
potential for exposure to arsenic and lead in soil,
and creating an alternative, more streamlined approach
under the Model Toxics Control Act for properties
affected by area-wide soil contamination. We believe
that the recommendations included in the enclosed
report offer you the means to respond appropriately to
area-wide soil contamination and appreciate you
giving the report your fullest consideration.
Thanks to you and to your staffs for providing us with
outstanding support throughout our deliberations.
It has been an honor to participate on this Task Force
and serve the people of Washington State, and we
look forward to seeing the benefits that will be brought
about as a result of this work.
Respectfully,
Mr. Stephen Gerritson, Task Force Co-chair Mr. Steven D.
Kelley, Task Force Co-chair
Sierra Club Washington Association of Realtors
Enclosure
Signature Page
We, the members of the Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force, submit this report to the
Washington State Departments of Agriculture, Ecology,
Health, and Community, Trade and
Economic Development. This report contains the Task
Force’s findings and recommendations
on a statewide strategy for addressing area-wide soil
contamination.
In developing this report, Task Force members considered
and took positions on a large number
of complex issues. This report contains many
compromises. Under the Task Force’s approach
to consensus, a member’s signature below means that he
or she is comfortable with the report as
a whole; where there was disagreement on an issue, the
report documents the range of views on
the Task Force.
Stephen Gerritson, Task Force Co-chair
Sierra Club
Katherine Bridwell
Safeco
Jon DeJong
Wenatchee School District
Loren R. Dunn
Washington Environmental Council
(chose not to sign)
Jim Hazen
Washington State Horticultural
Association
Steve Marek
Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Report
Steven D. Kelley, Task Force Co-chair
Washington Association of Realtors
Scott McKinnie
Far West Agribusiness Association
Laura Mrachek
Cascade Analytical, Inc.
Raymond L. Paolella
City of Yakima
Frank Peryea, Ph.D.
Washington State University
Tree Fruit Research and Extension
Center, Wenatchee
Randy Phillips
Chelan-Douglas Health District
Marcia L. Riggers
Washington State Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Paul Roberts
City of Everett
Ken Stanton
Douglas County Board of
Commissioners
Craig Trueblood
Preston Gates & Ellis, LLP
Michael Wearne
Washington Mutual Bank
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Report
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
.........................................................................................................................
i
1.
Introduction...................................................................................................................1
2. Project Background and Task Force Charge
...........................................................................3
3. Task Force Composition, Process, and Information
Gathering...............................................5
4. Consideration of Health Risks and Guiding Principles
for Making Recommendations .........8
5. Nature and Extent of Area-Wide Soil Contamination
...........................................................12
What is Known About the Nature and Extent of Area-Wide
Arsenic
and Lead Soil Contamination
...............................................................................................
12
Recommendations on How Information on the Nature and
Extent of
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Should be
Communicated.................................................. 14
Individual Property Evaluations
...........................................................................................
15
Maps of Potential Area-Wide Soil
Contamination............................................................... 16
Recommendations for Improving Our Understanding of the
Nature
and Extent of Area-Wide Soil Contamination in Washington
............................................. 20
6. Range of Protection Measures Considered and
Evaluation of Protection Measures.............22
7. Broad-Based Education and
Awareness-Building.................................................................24
Recommendations
................................................................................................................
24
8. Recommendations for Specific Land-Use
Scenarios.............................................................30
8a. Child-Use
Areas..............................................................................................................
30
Recommendations
................................................................................................................
31
8b. Residential
Properties.....................................................................................................
36
Recommendations
................................................................................................................
37
8c. Commercial Areas
..........................................................................................................
40
Recommendations
................................................................................................................
40
8d. Open Land
......................................................................................................................
40
Recommendations
................................................................................................................
40
Open Land Being Developed into Other Land Uses
............................................................ 41
Open Land Not Proposed for Development
......................................................................... 43
8e. Root
Vegetables..........................................................................................................
43
9. Real Estate Disclosure
Recommendations.............................................................................45
Recommendations
................................................................................................................
45
10. Application of the Model Toxics Control Act
.......................................................................47
Recommendations
................................................................................................................
48
11. Recommendations for Additional Information
Needed.........................................................52
Monitoring of Arsenic and Lead Exposure
.......................................................................... 52
Research on Roadside Lead
Contamination.........................................................................
52
Research on Ecological Risks
..............................................................................................
53
12. Costs and Funding
Recommendations...................................................................................54
Recommendations
................................................................................................................
54
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Report
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Uses
Appendix B: Task Force Process Documents
Appendix C: Summary of Focus Group and Public Comments
on the Task Force Preliminary
Recommendations
Appendix D: Summary of Interviews with Task Force
Members and Stakeholders
Appendix E: Summary of the Information Survey
Appendix F: Institutional Frameworks Case Studies and
Institutional Approaches Used in
Other States
Appendix G: Supporting Research on Institutional Systems
in Washington
Appendix H: Information on Health Effects from Exposure
to Arsenic and Lead
Appendix I: Examples of Local Maps of Area-Wide Soil
Contamination
Appendix J: Evaluation of Protection Measures
Appendix K: Area-Wide Soil Contamination Toolbox
Appendix L: NWFPA Interim Recommendations for Managing
Potential Risk of Lead
Arsenate Uptake from Former Orchard Sites and Related
Documents
Appendix M: Cost Estimates for the Task Force
Recommendations
Appendix N: Summary of Potential Funding Sources
Appendix O: Summary of Task Force Recommendations
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Report
Executive Summary
This report transmits the findings and recommendations
of the Area-Wide Soil Contamination
Task Force, a 17-person panel chartered by the
Washington State Departments of Agriculture,
Ecology, Health, and Community, Trade and Economic
Development (the Agencies) to offer
advice about a statewide strategy to respond to low- to
moderate-level arsenic and lead soil
contamination in Washington State. The Model Toxics
Control Act (MTCA) Policy Advisory
Committee (PAC) recommended that the Department of
Ecology (Ecology) take steps to more
effectively address area-wide soil contamination, and
the Task Force was formed in response to
this recommendation and based on the Agencies’ belief
that effective, long-term solutions to
area-wide soil contamination would require looking
beyond traditional cleanup processes and
agency boundaries.
The Task Force carried out its deliberations over a
17-month period beginning in February 2002.
Deliberations took place at a series of public meetings
and through conference calls and e-mail
discussions. Task Force members represented a diverse
array of perspectives, including
environmental, agricultural, schools, business,
financial, insurance, real estate, public health, and
local government. Preliminary Task Force recommendations
were widely publicized and made
available for public review and comment; Task Force
members considered these comments in
finalizing their recommendations.
Task Force deliberations focused on understanding the
nature and extent of area-wide soil
contamination, making recommendations about effective,
practical, and affordable steps
individuals and organizations can take to reduce their
potential for exposure to area-wide soil
contamination, and on creating an alternate, more
streamlined approach under MTCA for
properties affected by area-wide soil contamination.
One Task Force member participated in the process but
chose not to sign the final report because
of concerns over recommendations dealing with funding
future mapping projects and the
potential economic impact of creating area-wide soil
contamination zones.
What is Area-Wide Soil Contamination?
“Area-wide soil contamination” refers to low- to
moderate-level soil contamination that is
dispersed over a large geographic area, covering several
hundred acres to many square miles.
For schools, childcare centers, and residential land
uses, in general, Ecology considers total
arsenic concentrations of up to 100 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg)1 and total lead
concentrations of up to 500–700 mg/kg to be within the
low-to-moderate range. For properties
where exposure of children is less likely or less
frequent, such as commercial properties, parks,
and camps, Ecology considers total arsenic
concentrations of up to 200 mg/kg and total lead
concentrations of up to 700–1,000 mg/kg to be within
the low-to-moderate range.
1 Milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) is numerically
equivalent to parts per million.
Page i June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
For comparison, the cleanup levels under MTCA for total
arsenic and lead in soil are 20 mg/kg
and 250 mg/kg, respectively. Arsenic occurs naturally in
Washington State soils at
approximately 5–9 mg/kg; lead occurs at 11–24 mg/kg.
The Task Force considered area-wide arsenic and lead
soil contamination primarily from two
sources: past use of lead arsenate-based pesticides, and
historical emissions from metal smelters
located in Everett, Northport, Tacoma, and on Harbor
Island (in Seattle). Based on current
information, it is estimated that 676,550 acres in
Washington State may be affected by area-wide
arsenic and lead soil contamination from these sources.
The Task Force also considered the
possibility of area-wide soil contamination from
combustion of leaded gasoline, and made
recommendations about gathering additional information
on the potential for area-wide soil
contamination from this source.
Task Force Charter
The Agencies asked the Task Force to provide findings
and recommendations on four sets of
questions:
What is
currently known about the nature and extent of arsenic and lead soil
contamination in Washington State? What steps should be
taken to improve our
understanding of the location and magnitude of arsenic
and lead soil contamination?
What are
technically feasible measures for addressing widespread low-to-moderate soil
contamination problems? What is the full range of
actions that might be considered to
address widespread low-to-moderate levels of soil
contamination?
What
changes are needed to eliminate barriers in addressing area-wide soil
contamination
problems? How can agencies facilitate cleanup of
area-wide soil contamination problems
under the current legal system?
What
agencies need to play a role in addressing area-wide soil contamination problems
and what are possible funding sources?
The Agencies also identified three areas as beyond the
scope of the Task Force process: 1)
MTCA cleanup standards for arsenic and lead and the
policies and technical methods upon
which the cleanup standards are based, 2) ongoing
site-specific cleanup actions, and 3) current
agricultural practices.
Task Force Guiding Principles
In making recommendations, the Task Force was guided by
six principles, which it believes
should also guide the Agencies. These principles are:
A balanced
approach is needed, centered on effective, practical, and affordable solutions.
Risks from
area-wide soil contamination appear to be relatively low when compared to
risks at sites with higher concentrations of
contaminants.
Page ii June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
It is
prudent to take effective, practical, and affordable steps to minimize the
potential for
exposure to area-wide soil contamination.
Efforts
should focus on children, because they are believed to the human population most
sensitive to elevated levels of lead and arsenic in the
environment.
Responses
to area-wide soil contamination should be commensurate with the level of risk
associated with potential exposures and should increase
as potential exposure increases.
Decisions
about area-wide soil contamination should be made locally.
From these principles, the Task Force’s deliberations
produced agreement on and support for
numerous recommendations to the chartering Agencies.
Education is the Foundation of Task Force
Recommendations
The foundation of the Task Force recommendations calls
for the Agencies to initiate a broadbased
health education and awareness-building campaign about
low- to moderate-level arsenic
and lead soil contamination, and to support and
encourage actions individuals can take to reduce
the likelihood that they will be exposed to arsenic and
lead in soil. The Task Force recommends
that the Agencies:
Work with
and through local governments, particularly local health jurisdictions, to
establish a broad-based education and awareness-building
campaign designed to provide
individuals, organizations, and communities with a
toolbox of information and materials
to make knowledgeable and responsible choices about
responding to area-wide soil
contamination. This should include information on where
area-wide soil contamination
is most likely, how people can conduct individual
property evaluations of the potential
for area-wide soil contamination, and on effective,
practical, and affordable steps people
can take to reduce the likelihood that they will be
exposed to arsenic and lead in soil.
Education should focus on people and organizations that
care for children—including
parents, educators, health care providers, and childcare
providers—and gardeners and
other adults who frequently work in soil.
Take a
step-wise approach to education and awareness-building with statewide
distribution of general information supplemented by
specific outreach and support for
individuals and organizations located where area-wide
soil contamination is likely.
Encourage
residents in area-wide soil contamination zones to implement “individual
protection measures,” such as hand washing, removing
shoes before entering the house,
frequently washing toys and pets that go outdoors, and
scrubbing fruits and vegetables
before eating them. Also encourage residents in
area-wide soil contamination zones to
maintain good soil cover.
Evaluate
the effectiveness of these outreach and education efforts.
Page iii June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Land-Use Specific Recommendations to Complement
Education
To complement broad-based education and
awareness-building, the Task Force also recommends
specific approaches in different land-use scenarios.
Child-Use Areas
For child-use areas (including schools, parks, and
childcare facilities) potentially affected by
area-wide soil contamination, the Task Force recommends
that property owners implement
individual protection measures, maintain good soil cover
in areas where children play, conduct
qualitative evaluations to increase their understanding
of where exposure could occur, test soils
where qualitative evaluations indicate the potential for
exposure to contaminated soil, and
implement additional protection measures such as
installing a geotextile fabric barrier between
contaminated soils and surfacing materials in play areas
if contamination is found. The Agencies
should work with local health jurisdictions, school
districts, and other organizations to support,
encourage, and assist with implementation of these
actions. Task Force recommendations for
child-use areas also call for the Agencies to:
Encourage
implementation of Consumer Product Safety Commission guidelines for
maintaining children’s safety at existing playgrounds
in parks, schools, camps, and
childcare facilities.
Require
soil testing at new public child-use area construction sites and implementation
of
additional protection measures if contamination is
found.
Establish,
with the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), a voluntary
certification program for family home childcares and
childcare centers to indicate that
they have taken steps to minimize children’s potential
for exposure to lead and arsenic in
soil.
Residential Properties
For residential properties potentially affected by
area-wide soil contamination, the Task Force
recommends that the Agencies offer technical and
financial assistance to support and encourage
residents to implement individual protection measures,
maintain good soil cover, and conduct
qualitative evaluations to understand where exposure
could occur. Where qualitative evaluations
indicate the potential for exposure to contaminated
soil, the Task Force recommends that
individuals consider soil testing and implementing
additional protection measures if
contamination is found.
Commercial Properties
For commercial properties potentially affected by
area-wide soil contamination, the Task Force
recommends that where commercial areas are covered with
surfaces such as buildings, parking
lots, or other effective soil cover, no further response
actions are necessary to address area-wide
soil contamination. For mixed-use areas, Task Force
recommendations for non-commercial use
should also be considered. For example, if a childcare
center is located in a shopping center, the
Task Force recommendations for child-use areas should be
considered for the childcare center.
Page iv June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Open Land
For open land potentially affected by area-wide soil
contamination, the Task Force recommends
that the Agencies:
Amend the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist to include a question about
whether there is the potential for area-wide soil
contamination on a property.
Encourage
developers to conduct qualitative evaluations of properties and, where
warranted, carry out soil testing prior to construction.
Also encourage developers to
incorporate appropriate additional protection measures
into site development and
construction plans.
Support
actions to enact Washington State legislation requiring a real property transfer
disclosure statement for open land.
In addition, for open land being developed, the Task
Force recommends that the Agencies ensure
implementation of existing U.S. Occupational Safety
& Health Administration (OSHA) and
Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA)
requirements governing worker
protection and safety, and implementation of
requirements to control windblown dust and soil
erosion due to storm water runoff during construction.
For open land not being developed, the
Task Force recommends that land owners use practical,
cost-effective measures to limit the
potential for exposure to contaminated soil and
windblown dust.
Application of the Model Toxics Control Act
The Task Force debated MTCA and its application to
area-wide soil contamination extensively.
From these discussions, the Task Force identified a
number of objectives related to use of MTCA
and a number of elements of MTCA that Ecology might
consider in meeting these objectives.
The Task Force makes six recommendations related to MTCA:
As much as
possible, use regulations instead of policies to implement Task Force
recommendations related to MTCA.
Avoid
listing individual properties affected by area-wide soil contamination and
instead
identify and describe area-wide soil contamination
zones.
Establish
in regulation a new enforcement forbearance policy available where property
owners choose to implement Task Force recommendations at
residential and commercial
properties within area-wide soil contamination zones. To
complement the policy,
establish a standard checklist that can be used to
document property status. Announce
the new policy and checklist when area-wide soil
contamination zones are first described.
Where
property owners choose not to implement Task Force recommendations, they
remain under the current MTCA system that includes a
policy under which, in general,
Ecology chooses not to take enforcement actions at
residential properties.
Where
properties are sampled and concentrations of arsenic and lead are below cleanup
levels, provide a streamlined process to reflect that
properties are clean.
Page v June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
The
traditional MTCA approach remains available to property owners who want to use
it
to address area-wide soil contamination and to Ecology
where a property is affected by
contamination other than area-wide soil contamination.
Other Recommendations
Task Force recommendations also address additional
information needs and funding strategies.
With respect to additional information gathering, the
Task Force recommends that the Agencies:
Gather
additional, scientifically valid information on the health of Washington
residents,
particularly children, who may be exposed to arsenic and
lead.
Conduct
further research to characterize the location and extent of elevated levels of
lead
in soil from past use of leaded gasoline in Washington.
Possibly focus on areas adjacent
to older, more heavily used roads.
Study the
effects of area-wide soil contamination on ecological receptors, including
plants and animals.
With respect to funding, the Task Force recommends that
the Agencies:
Provide
financial assistance for local government efforts to address area-wide soil
contamination, particularly the activities of local
health jurisdictions.
Seek
funding from a broad array of Federal, State, and private sources, including the
State and Local Toxics Accounts, private foundations,
Federal grant programs, the
Federal government and the State legislature, and any
identified potentially liable parties.
Page vi June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
1. Introduction
This report is the product of a 17-person Task Force
chartered by the Washington State
Departments of Agriculture, Ecology, Health, and
Community, Trade and Economic
Development (the Agencies). The Area-Wide Soil
Contamination Task Force (Task Force) was
charged with developing findings and recommendations
related to large areas of low- to
moderate-level arsenic and lead soil contamination (so
called “area-wide soil contamination”) in
Washington State. The Task Force process was carried out
over 18 months, from January 2002
to June 2003.
As used in this report, “area-wide soil
contamination” means low- to moderate-level soil
contamination that is dispersed over a large geographic
area, ranging in size from several
hundred acres to many square miles. Area-wide soil
contamination is different from most
cleanup sites, which are typically smaller and have
higher levels of contamination.
Concentrations of arsenic and lead within areas affected
by area-wide soil contamination are
highly variable. The Task Force relied on the current
views of the Department of Ecology
(Ecology) about what constitutes “low-to-moderate”
levels of arsenic and lead in soil. For
schools, childcare centers, and residential land uses,
in general, Ecology considers total arsenic
concentrations of up to 100 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg)2 and total lead concentrations of up
to 500–700 mg/kg to be within the low-to-moderate
range. For properties where exposure of
children is less likely or less frequent, such as
commercial properties, parks, and camps, Ecology
considers total arsenic concentrations of up to 200
mg/kg and total lead concentrations of up to
700–1,000 mg/kg to be within the low-to-moderate
range. Ecology plans to ask the Science
Advisory Board to review these values and their use in
implementing the Task Force
recommendations. For comparison, the State cleanup
levels for total arsenic and lead in soil are
20 mg/kg and 250 mg/kg, respectively. Arsenic occurs
naturally in Washington State soils at
approximately 5–9 mg/kg; lead at 11–24 mg/kg.
Task Force deliberations focused on understanding and
mapping the nature and extent of low- to
moderate-level arsenic and lead soil contamination from
two historical sources: emissions from
metal smelters, and use of pesticides containing lead
arsenate. The Task Force also offers
recommendations about considering the potential for
area-wide soil contamination from
combustion of leaded gasoline. Task Force
recommendations are focused on effective, practical,
and affordable steps that organizations and individuals
can take to reduce the potential for
exposure to low-to-moderate levels of arsenic and lead
soil contamination.
The foundation of the Task Force recommendations calls
for the Agencies to initiate a broadbased
education and awareness-building campaign about low- to
moderate-level arsenic and lead
soil contamination, and to support and encourage actions
individuals can take to reduce the
likelihood that they will be exposed to arsenic and lead
in soil. To complement broad-based
education and awareness-building, the Task Force also
recommends specific activities for a
number of land-use situations, with an emphasis on
child-use areas. Finally, the Task Force
2 Milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) is numerically
equivalent to parts per million.
Page 1 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
recommends creation of a special process under the Model
Toxics Control Act (MTCA) tailored
for properties affected by area-wide soil contamination.
In making these recommendations, the Task Force was
guided by six principles which are listed
here and described more fully later in the report:
A balanced
approach is needed, centered on effective, practical, and affordable solutions.
Risks from
area-wide soil contamination appear to be relatively low when compared to
risks at sites with higher concentrations of
contaminants.
It is
prudent to take effective, practical, and affordable steps to minimize the
potential for
exposure to area-wide soil contamination.
Efforts
should focus on children, because they are believed to the human population most
sensitive to elevated levels of lead and arsenic in the
environment.
Responses
to area-wide soil contamination should be commensurate with the level of risk
associated with potential exposures and should increase
as potential exposure increases.
Decisions
about area-wide soil contamination should be made locally.
Page 2 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
2. Project Background and Task Force Charge
In 1994, the Washington State Legislature established
the MTCA Policy Advisory Committee
(PAC) to review implementation of MTCA. In their final
report, the MTCA PAC recommended
that Ecology take steps to more effectively address
area-wide soil contamination. In early 2000,
the Agencies concluded that effective, long-term
solutions to area-wide soil contamination
problems would require looking beyond traditional
cleanup processes and agency boundaries.
The Agencies identified several interconnected
challenges posed by widespread low- to
moderate-level soil contamination.
Potential
for exposure: Over the past 50 years, Washington’s population growth has
resulted in many agricultural and forested areas and
other open space being converted to
residential uses. Population has also increased in areas
affected by emissions from metal
smelters. This growth can bring more people into contact
with area-wide soil
contamination.
Scale: The
geographic scale of area-wide soil contamination is significantly greater than
contamination typically addressed by State and Federal
cleanup programs and
encompasses many individual parcels of land.
Financial
Impacts: Citizens and land developers have purchased or built homes in areas
with contaminated soils. This creates the potential for
financial problems that may
include payment for cleanup, reduction in property
values, and difficulties in financing or
selling homes.
Lack of
Information and Awareness: The Agencies lack key information needed to
effectively address area-wide soil contamination; for
example, information on the full
scope of the problem and on stakeholder views.
Similarly, many residents are unaware
that soil at their homes, future homes, and/or
children’s schools may contain low-tomoderate
levels of arsenic and lead. Consequently, they fail to
take steps to control
exposures.
In June 2001, the Washington Legislature appropriated
$1.2 million to form and support a
stakeholder Task Force to consider these issues, and the
Agencies initiated the process of hiring a
project support contractor and identifying potential
Task Force members. The Agencies
chartered the Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force in
January 2002 to consider the special
challenges posed by area-wide soil contamination and
recommend a statewide strategy for
meeting these challenges. In particular, the Agencies
asked the Task Force to provide findings
and recommendations on four sets of questions:
What is
currently known about the nature and extent of arsenic and lead soil
contamination in Washington State? What steps should be
taken to improve our
understanding of the location and magnitude of arsenic
and lead soil contamination?
Page 3 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
What are
technically feasible measures for addressing widespread low-to-moderate soil
contamination problems? What is the full range of
actions that might be considered to
address widespread low-to-moderate levels of soil
contamination?
What
changes are needed to eliminate barriers in addressing area-wide soil
contamination
problems? How can agencies facilitate cleanup of
area-wide soil contamination problems
under the current legal system?
What
agencies need to play a role in addressing area-wide soil contamination problems
and what are possible funding sources?
Even though other contaminants may pose area-wide soil
contamination problems, the Agencies
asked the Task Force to focus on problems associated
with arsenic and lead because of the
potential widespread distribution of these contaminants
and their persistence in the environment.
The Agencies also identified three areas as beyond the
scope of the Task Force process: 1)
MTCA cleanup standards for arsenic and lead and the
policies and technical methods upon
which the cleanup standards are based, 2) ongoing
site-specific cleanup actions, and 3) current
agricultural practices. In this context, the Task Force
began deliberations at its first meeting in
February 2002.
Page 4 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
3. Task Force Composition, Process, and Information
Gathering
The Task Force was made up of 17 individuals who
represent diverse interests including
business, environment, agriculture, local government,
and schools. The Agencies identified Task
Force members based on areas of expertise, ability to
represent potentially affected stakeholder
groups, and a desire to ensure geographic representation
across the state. Task Force members
served the project as volunteers—they were not
compensated for their time or expertise. Most
Task Force members served for the entire process. Two
Task Force members left the process
relatively early because of changes in their
professional circumstances. They were replaced by
other representatives in their area of expertise. The
Task Force met 12 times from February
2002 to June 2003. All meetings were advertised and were
open to the public, and opportunities
for public comment were provided at each meeting.
The Task Force began by reviewing and accepting the Task
Force charter, which includes the
questions posed by the Agencies and the areas identified
as outside the scope of the Task Force
deliberations discussed in the section above. It also
accepted two co-chairs recommended by the
Agencies—a representative of environmental interests
from Western Washington and a
representative of business interests from Eastern
Washington. The Task Force co-chairs served
as liaisons to the facilitation team and helped to guide
and manage the Task Force process. A list
of Task Force members and meeting locations and dates,
as well as a copy of the Task Force
charter and ground rules are included in Appendix B.
There was a wide range of views on the Task Force, and
at their first meetings Task Force
members worked to develop a common language and
information base from which to discuss
area-wide soil contamination and to understand one
another’s concerns and interests. At their
fourth meeting, the Task Force developed a Project Map
(see Figure 1 below) to organize their
deliberations. The Project Map organizes Task Force
deliberations into four issue areas: 1)
identifying the nature and extent of area-wide soil
contamination, 2) identifying actions to
address area-wide soil contamination, 3) implementing
actions to address area-wide soil
contamination, and 4) funding sources and financing
mechanisms. It lists questions that the Task
Force considered under each issue area and shows the
issue areas as interrelated and affected by
three overarching factors: cost, health exposure data,
and MTCA. Between full Task Force
meetings, small groups of Task Force members met to
evaluate specific issues identified on the
Project Map and develop options and recommendations for
the full Task Force to consider.
These discussions formed the basis for the
recommendations described in this report.
The Task Force completed preliminary findings and
recommendations for the majority of the
questions on the Project Map in April 2003. Preliminary
Task Force findings and
recommendations were widely publicized and made
available for public review and comment in
May 2003. In addition, five focus group meetings were
organized. Task Force members
attended the focus group meetings to hear first-hand the
reactions to the preliminary findings and
recommendations. The public review and comment process
is summarized in Appendix C. The
Page 5 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Task Force then met twice in June 2003 to evaluate
public comments and refine their findings
and recommendations, and issued their final report at
the end of June 2003.
One Task Force member participated in the process but
chose not to sign the final report because
of concerns over recommendations dealing with funding
future mapping projects and the
potential economic impact of creating area-wide soil
contamination zones.
Figure 1: Area-Wide Soil Contamination Project Map
The Agencies served as ex officio members of the Task
Force, attending both Task Force and
small group meetings. They provided background
information and support for Task Force
deliberations and offered agency perspectives during the
Task Force’s development of findings
and recommendations, but did not participate in final
decision-making with respect to the Task
Force report. In addition, the Task Force was supported
by a contractor project team hired by
Ecology and, early in their process, by two workgroups
made up of technical experts and
advisors. The workgroups carried out research and
analysis to support Task Force deliberations
and reviewed technical documents prepared for the
project. The contractor project team carried
Page 6 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
out research and analysis to support Task Force
deliberations and facilitated the Task Force and
small group meetings.
Task Force deliberations were supported by an
information-gathering effort that had four
primary components:
Interviews
with Task Force members and stakeholders to identify key issues and
concerns.
Survey of
research to identify and learn from other approaches to area-wide soil
contamination and similar challenges.
Case
studies of several relevant cleanup or land-use development projects to evaluate
their legal, funding, and institutional arrangements for
addressing soil contamination and
responding to public concerns.
Research on
institutional systems in Washington relevant to recommendations the Task
Force considered.
These information-gathering efforts are described in
Appendices D–G of this report.
Page 7 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
4. Consideration of Health Risks and Guiding Principles
for
Making Recommendations
As described earlier in this report, the
Task Force charter specifically excluded
What is Low-to-Moderate?
evaluation of the MTCA soil cleanup The Task Force
relied on Ecology’s current views
standards for arsenic and lead, the risk about what
constitutes “low-to-moderate” levels of
policies underlying the cleanup standards, arsenic and
lead in soil. For schools, childcare
and the technical methods used to Ecology considers
arsenic concentrations of up to
centers, and residential land uses, in general,
establish the standards. Nonetheless, to 100 total mg/kg
and lead concentrations of up to
develop appropriate recommendations, 500–700 total
mg/kg to be within the low-to-moderate
the Task Force discussed the potential range. For
properties where exposure of children is
risks posed by arsenic and lead, reviewed less likely or
less frequent, such as commercial
properties, parks, and camps, Ecology considers some of
the available information on arsenic concentrations of up to 200 total mg/kg and
potential health effects from exposure to lead
concentrations of up to 700–1,000 total mg/kg to
low-to-moderate levels of arsenic and lead be within the
low-to-moderate range.
in soil, and heard presentations from
experts. Information provided to the Task Force on the
potential health effects of arsenic and
lead is summarized in Appendix H. From this evaluation,
the Task Force reached a number of
conclusions:
As
described later in this report, concentrations of arsenic and lead in soil are
above State
soil cleanup levels in some areas of Washington State.
The risk of
developing health problems from arsenic or lead depends on the amount of
exposure and the concentrations to which a person is
exposed. The greater the exposure
and/or the greater the concentrations, the greater the
risk. Most information about the
health effects of arsenic and lead comes from studies
where exposures were greater than
those expected from living and working in places with
low-to-moderate levels of arsenic
and lead in soil.
Scientific
studies to date have not found conclusive evidence that exposure to low-tomoderate
levels of arsenic and lead contamination in soil has
caused or is causing
deleterious health effects in Washington residents. The
number of pertinent studies is
small, and their designs lack sufficient power to detect
the presence of increased
incidences of adverse health effects, if any do exist.
Health monitoring and research
studies have not been carried out to the extent
necessary to understand and document
whether exposure to low- to moderate-level soil
contamination is causing or contributing
to long-term health problems.
Evaluating
health effects at lower levels of exposure is difficult and expensive. It is
unlikely that conclusive scientific information to
determine the health risks, if any, from
exposure to area-wide soil contamination will be
available in the foreseeable future. In
light of this uncertainty, there is disagreement among
scientists about how the
information that is available should be interpreted and
used to assess the risks of exposure
to low- to moderate-level soil contamination. Some
members of the scientific
Page 8 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
community argue that Federal and State efforts to
address low- to moderate-level soil
contamination are not scientifically justified because
there is no information
demonstrating that health problems are being caused by
exposure to such contamination.
Other members of the scientific community argue that
arsenic and lead in soil have the
potential to cause health problems at low levels of
exposure—especially for people, such
as young children, who are particularly sensitive to the
effects of these contaminants.
Task Force members mirrored this diversity of views. In
recent years, the majority of
scientific review committees formed to evaluate the
available scientific information on
arsenic and lead have concluded that there is a
sufficient scientific basis to justify efforts
to reduce exposure to all sources of arsenic and lead,
including arsenic and lead occurring
in soil.
Arsenic and
lead are both considered persistent contaminants. This means that they bind
strongly to soil and usually remain in the environment
without breaking down or losing
their toxicity, and thus can be a source of exposure for
many decades.
In light of these conclusions, the Task
Force developed six guiding principles.
These principles guided the Task Force’s
deliberations and recommendations and
should guide the Agencies and other
organizations’ implementation of Task
Force recommendations:
A balanced
approach is needed:
The Task Force believes that
responses to area-wide soil
contamination should be effective,
practical and affordable.
What Home Remedies Contain Lead?
Some home remedies or medicines contain lead and
can make people, particularly young children, very
sick, even though symptoms of lead poisoning might
not be immediately evident. Home remedies
containing lead include:
Azarcon and
Greta are bright powders used in
the Hispanic community to treat intestinal illness
or “empacho.” They are almost 100% lead.
Pay-loo-ah
is a red powder used in the Hmong
community to treat rash or fever.
Ghasard,
Bala Goli, and Kandu are Asian Indian
remedies for stomachaches.
Kohl and
Surma are used in Arab communities Lower
adverse health risk: Despite for cosmetic and medicinal purposes.
the fact that concentrations of
arsenic and lead in soil may be
above State soil cleanup levels, the Task Force believes
that the level of risk associated
with exposures to low-to-moderate arsenic and lead soil
contamination appears to be
relatively low when compared to risks at sites where
smelters operated or where lead
arsenate pesticides were mixed (i.e., sites with higher
concentrations of contaminants).
Resources to address contaminated sites in Washington
State are limited, and addressing
area-wide soil contamination sites will compete for
resources with addressing more
traditional cleanup sites. Beyond the broad-based
education and awareness-building
described below, the Task Force does not recommend that
additional remediation
responses are needed at every individual property with
low-to-moderate arsenic and lead
soil contamination, unless exposure potential exists for
children or the likelihood for
enhanced exposure potential exists for adults through
activities such as gardening.
Focus on
controlling exposure: Given the potential for exposure to arsenic and lead to
cause adverse health effects in people, it is prudent to
take effective, practical, and
affordable steps to minimize the potential for exposure
to arsenic and lead in soil.
Page 9 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Focus on
children: While adults
are also vulnerable to adverse
health effects from arsenic and Nationwide, the most
common source of lead
lead and should not be ignored, the poisoning in
children is lead-based paint. Lead was
Task Force felt a special used extensively in interior
and exterior paint before
responsibility to address protection
of children. Resources devoted to
assessing and responding to areawide
soil contamination should be
focused on locations where there contaminated from
lead-based paint.
is the highest risk of exposure and
should be targeted at protecting children. The
vulnerability of the population, likelihood
of exposure, and the duration or frequency of exposures
are the most important factors in
deciding whether response actions are necessary and,
where actions are needed, in
selecting the specific actions selected.
Lead-Based Paint
1950 and may be present in any home built before
1978. Lead-based paint is most dangerous when it is
peeling, chipping, chalking, or cracking. Children can
be exposed to lead by eating paint chips, chewing
painted surfaces, or ingesting soil or dust
Responses
increase as exposure increases: Responses to area-wide soil contamination
should be commensurate with the level of risk associated
with potential exposure. In
general, the intensity and effectiveness of responses to
area-wide soil contamination
should increase as exposures become more likely (because
of likelihood of extent of
contact), more prevalent (because of more individuals
exposed), or more intense (because
of longer duration or more frequent exposures). In some
situations, higher concentrations
of arsenic or lead may be found in areas affected by
area-wide soil contamination; in
these cases, more aggressive response actions may be
warranted.
Decisions
should be made locally: The Task Force recommends what it believes are
effective, practical, and low-cost methods to respond to
area-wide soil contamination.
However, the Task Force recommendations are only
guidelines. Each person or
community affected by area-wide soil contamination
should implement a response that
meets their priorities, objectives, and tolerance for
risk, even if those responses differ
from those recommended by the Task Force. For example,
some individuals or
communities might choose not to implement Task Force
recommendations. Other
individuals or communities might choose to remove
contaminated soil because they do
not want the added complication of maintaining
protection measures over time, even
though less costly actions focused on individual
protection measures and maintaining soil
cover would also be effective.
Using these guiding principles, the Task Force
considered a wide range of protection measures
and developed the recommendations in the remainder of
this report.
One Task Force member expressed strong and persistent
concerns about the wisdom of the Task
Force process, believing that it was inappropriate to
exclude consideration of the MTCA cleanup
standards from the Task Force charter and that the
process failed to demonstrate any link
between human health risk to lead and arsenic in the
soil. This Task Force member asserts that a
full evaluation of these issues would show that the MTCA
cleanup levels for arsenic and lead in
soil are set too low given current and historical human
health-related data regarding this complex
issue and should be revised. Although this Task Force
member supports efforts to reduce
Page 10 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
potential exposure through education and awareness
building efforts, he chose not to sign the
final report because of concerns over recommendations
dealing with funding future mapping
projects and the potential economic impact of creating
area-wide soil contamination zones. He
remains very concerned about possible overreaction to
area-wide soil contamination that could
lead to unwarranted fears by the public and media,
potential damage to local and state
economies, and overregulation by government in response
to this issue.
Page 11 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
5. Nature and Extent of Area-Wide Soil Contamination
The Task Force considered what is known and not known
about the location and magnitude of
elevated levels of arsenic and lead in soil from
historical smelter emissions, use of pesticides
containing arsenic and lead, and combustion of leaded
gasoline. Much of the Task Force’s
deliberations focused on how to communicate this
information in a way that would present
information accurately without causing undue alarm. As
discussed below, the Task Force
decided that a tiered series of maps, along with
accompanying information and tools, should be
used to communicate information on area-wide soil
contamination in a balanced and useful way.
The Task Force also recommends updating the maps
regularly to improve their precision and
developing local maps of area-wide soil contamination
where such maps do not exist (primarily
for areas affected by lead arsenate pesticides).
Recommendations for additional research on
contamination from combustion of leaded gasoline are
discussed in Section 11.
The Task Force’s findings and recommendations in this
section are organized according to three
questions the Task Force considered:
What is
currently known about the nature and extent of arsenic and lead soil
contamination in Washington State?
How should
information on the nature and extent of area-wide soil contamination be
communicated?
What steps
should be taken to improve our understanding of the nature and extent of
arsenic and lead soil contamination?
What is Known About the Nature and Extent of Area-Wide
Arsenic and
Lead Soil Contamination
What is Area-Wide Soil Contamination?
Elevated levels of arsenic and lead are present in
soil in some areas of Washington State from three
historical sources: air emissions from metal Area-wide
soil contamination is low- to smelters, lead arsenate pesticides, and
moderate-level contamination that is dispersed
combustion of leaded gasoline. In areas affected over a
large geographic area, ranging in size
by off-site deposition of smelter emissions and from
several hundred acres to many square
areas where lead arsenate pesticides were applied miles.
to crops, concentrations of arsenic and lead in soil
generally are higher than concentrations that occur
naturally in Washington soils and higher than
State soil cleanup levels established under MTCA.
However, concentrations generally are lower
than those found at smelter operation sites and at sites
where lead arsenate pesticides were mixed
in preparation for application. Low-to-moderate arsenic
and lead soil contamination associated
with areas affected by off-site deposition of smelter
emissions, lead arsenate pesticide
application, and combustion of leaded gasoline is
referred to as “area-wide soil contamination”
to distinguish it from the higher concentrations and
smaller geographic extent of contamination
at more traditional cleanup sites.
Page 12 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
What Are Other Sources of Arsenic and
Lead Contamination?
include wood treated with chromated copper
arsenate (often called “pressure-treated”
wood), emissions from coal-fired power plants
The precise boundaries of land affected by areawide
soil contamination are not known; however,
certain places have a higher likelihood of arsenic
and lead soil contamination based on the Other sources
of arsenic contamination
locations of metal smelters or the probable use of
lead arsenate pesticides from approximately 1905
to 1947. To support Task Force deliberations, the and
incinerators, and other industrial
contractor project team conducted a detailed processes.
Other sources of lead
study of available data on the nature and extent of
contamination include lead-based paint, leadarea-
wide soil contamination. Based on this soldered water
pipes, home remedies or
study, areas affected by smelter emissions in
health-care products that contain lead, hobbies
that use lead (e.g., stained glass or King, Pierce,
Snohomish, and Stevens counties sculpturing), foods and beverages, combustion
have a higher likelihood of arsenic and lead soil of
coal or oil, waste incinerators, and mining
contamination than other areas of the state due to and
industrial processes (such as battery and
historical emissions from metal smelters located
ammunitions manufacturing). Both arsenic
in Tacoma, Everett, Northport, and Trail, BC, and and
lead also occur naturally in the
environment at varying concentrations. on Harbor Island
(in Seattle). Areas where apples
and pears were historically grown have a higher
likelihood of arsenic and lead soil contamination than
other areas of the state because of past use
of lead arsenate pesticides. Chelan, Spokane, Yakima,
and Okanogan counties have a higher
likelihood than other counties for elevated levels of
lead and arsenic in soil based on the greater
numbers of apple and pear trees in production there
between 1905 and 1947. Combustion of
leaded gasoline produces lead-enriched particulates and
aerosols that are emitted from exhaust
pipes and deposited onto nearby soils. The full extent
of area-wide soil contamination from past
use of leaded gasoline in Washington is not known;
however, in general, land adjacent to any
road constructed prior to 1995 and land in the center of
highly populated urban areas has some
likelihood of elevated levels of lead in soil from
leaded gasoline. Table 1, later in this section,
describes the number of acres potentially affected by
area-wide arsenic and lead soil
contamination based on information currently available.
According to the study prepared to support Task Force
deliberations, the range of concentrations
of arsenic and lead in soil associated with area-wide
soil contamination is quite broad. Total
arsenic concentrations range from natural background
levels (7–9 mg/kg statewide) to over 3,000
mg/kg in smelter areas. Average concentrations of total
arsenic in soil at developed properties
with area-wide soil contamination generally are less
than 100 mg/kg. Total lead concentrations
range from natural background levels (11–24 mg/kg
statewide) to over 4,000 mg/kg in orchard
top soils (higher concentrations are likely areas where
pesticides were mixed prior to
application). Average concentrations of total lead in
soil at developed properties with area-wide
soil contamination generally are less than 700 mg/kg. By
comparison, the MTCA soil cleanup
levels for unrestricted land use for total arsenic and
total lead are 20 mg/kg and 250 mg/kg,
respectively. Soil concentrations tend to be greater
around the Tacoma smelter than in the other
smelter areas, because the Tacoma smelter operated for a
longer period and specialized in the
processing of high-arsenic ore.
Where found, arsenic and lead soil contamination tends
to be relatively shallow. In undisturbed
soils, most of the arsenic and essentially all of the
lead from historical smelter emissions and
Page 13 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
historical use of lead-arsenate pesticides typically are
concentrated in the upper 6 to 18 inches of
soil.3 While some downward movement of arsenic occurs in
most soils, substantial downward
movement has been detected on occasion and appears to be
restricted to heavily leached sandy-
to medium-textured soils with very uniform soil profile
characteristics.4 Currently there does not
appear to be evidence of ground water contamination
associated with area-wide soil
contamination. The long-term consequences of the very
slow downward movement of arsenic in
soil require further evaluation.
Concentrations of arsenic and lead at properties
affected by area-wide soil contamination are
highly variable and depend on the historical use and
development of the property. For example,
during development of a property, surface soils are
often mixed with underlying soils and
redistributed; this disturbance tends to dilute the
concentrations of arsenic and lead in soil and
distribute them in unpredictable patterns. Contaminant
concentrations on one property cannot
reliably be used to predict concentrations on
neighboring properties.
Information on the nature and extent of arsenic and lead
soil contamination provided the basis
for Task Force deliberations on what actions should be
taken to respond to area-wide soil
contamination in important ways. For example, the
knowledge that most added arsenic and
almost all added lead remains in surface and
near-surface soils, coupled with lack of evidence for
ground water contamination, suggests that ground water
contamination is not likely an issue for
properties with area-wide soil contamination. Similarly,
the understanding that arsenic and lead
contamination tends to be highest in undisturbed soils,
with other considerations, led to the Task
Force’s recommendations on additional steps that
should be taken when converting open land
into developed properties.
Recommendations on How Information on the Nature and
Extent of
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Should be Communicated
The Task Force recommends that information on the nature
and extent of area-wide soil
contamination be communicated using a combination of
maps and accompanying narrative
information that emphasize the need for individual
property evaluations to determine with
certainty whether area-wide soil contamination is
present.
Maps can be a highly effective way to communicate
available information about potential
locations of area-wide soil contamination to the public.
In addition to communicating
information about potential locations of area-wide soil
contamination to the public, the maps
recommended by the Task Force serve a variety of
purposes, including helping the Agencies to
identify areas where an alternate approach under MTCA
might apply (see Section 10 below) and
helping the Agencies and local jurisdictions prioritize
and focus efforts where area-wide soil
contamination is more likely. For the Tacoma and Everett
smelters, Ecology, several local
jurisdictions, and other organizations have collected
and continue to collect data on where
3 Landau Associates, Preliminary Estimates Report,
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Strategy, Washington State,
prepared for the Washington State Department of Ecology,
Olympia, WA, 2003 (pending).
4 Peryea, F.J., and T.L. Creger, “Vertical
Distribution of Lead and Arsenic in Lead Arsenate-Contaminated Soils.”
Water, Air and Soil Pollution 78 (1994): 297-306.
Page 14 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Table 1: Preliminary Estimates of Area-Wide Soil
Contamination in Washington
arsenic and lead soil contamination is likely to be
present based on emissions, wind deposition,
and results of a number of soil sampling events, and
have developed maps to communicate this
information. These maps were an important factor in the
Task Force deliberations. Task Force
recommendations related to maps are discussed later in
this section.
Maps also have significant
limitations. As discussed
earlier in this report, the
precise boundaries of areawide
soil contamination are
Estimated Land
Area Affected (3)
329,600 acres (1)
8,320 acres (1) (2)
640 acres (1)
150,400 acres (1) (2)
187,590 acres (1)
Unknown at present
676,550 acres
Area-Wide
Contamination Source
not, and likely will not be,
identified and therefore cannot
be mapped. Even where area- Harbor Island
wide soil contamination is Northport and Trail
likely, the actual distribution
and concentrations of arsenic Orchard Land
and lead in soil vary greatly Leaded Gasoline
over short distances. Because All Area-Wide Sources
of this limitation, the Task (1)
Smelters
Tacoma
Everett
Force emphasizes that maps (2)
Extent of affected area has not been fully
characterized.
can be used only to Based on air modeling for the
Everett smelter and maps of sulfur dioxide injury to
vegetation for the Northport and Trail smelters.
communicate where elevated (3) The total area of land in
Washington is 66,544 square miles, or about 42.6
levels of arsenic and lead in million acres.
soil are more likely to be
present relative to other areas in Washington State.
Maps do not show where elevated levels of
arsenic and lead have actually been found, and many
properties within identified area-wide soil
contamination locations may, if sampled, be shown to
have concentrations of arsenic and lead
that are below MTCA cleanup levels.
Individual Property Evaluations
Because of the limitations of maps, an individual
property assessment is the only way to know
with certainty whether a property is affected by
area-wide soil contamination. The Task Force
believes that individual property evaluations are an
important step for people to understand the
potential for area-wide soil contamination where they
live or work. These assessments are more
important than locating a property on one of the maps
discussed later in this report, because of
the variability in the distribution of arsenic and lead
and other limitations of mapping. To
support individual property evaluations, the Task Force
has created the following flowchart.
Individuals who follow the flowchart and determine that
there is a high probability of area-wide
soil contamination at their property should implement
individual protection measures and
maintain good soil cover, and may want to consider soil
testing, particularly if there is a high
potential for exposure.
Page 15 June 30, 2003 Figure 2: Individual Property
Evaluation Flowchart
1
Ye Yes High High
p t i l abi ob r probability
2
D e Y y tel ni fi e Definitely Yes High High
p t i l abi ob r probability
3
4
5
6
7
ST HER T AR START HERE
Is ic r o t s i h y b d e t c e f f a a e ar n a in h t
i w y t oper r e p h t Is the property within an area affected by historical al
s on ssi i m r e e t el m smelter emissions? s?
No/D ’t n o No/Don’t Know Know
W the on n ow r s g e e tr ar pe r d/o an e pl ap e r
Were apple and/or pear trees grown on the
prope 194 e r o f be y t r property before 1947? 7?
Don’t K Don’t Know now
Is t g n growi r a e p or e pl ap l a c stori hi a n i y
t r e op r he p Is the property in a historical apple or pear growing
area? area?
Y t K s/Don’ e Yes/Don’t Know now
Is nd l la a r de e f r o e t a t s n o y t oper r e p h
t Is the property on state or federal land?
No/D ’t n o No/Don’t Know Know
Has th t s i a d or w be r stu di en be r ve ne y t er
op r e p Has the property never been disturbed or was it
dev 19 r e t af nd a d l sturbe i d n u m o r f ed op el
developed from undisturbed land after 1947? 47?
No/D ’t n o No/Don’t Know Know
Is th o i at v e el n et i e 0 f 50 , e 2 v o b a y t er
op r e p Is the property above 2,500 feet in elevation
( ) ty Coun a m i k a Y n i f i t e e f 000 2, bove a r
o (or above 2,000 feet if in Yakima County)?
No/D ’t n o No/Don’t Know Know
Does t f o s che n i 15 n less tha e v i ce e r y t er
op r he p Does the property receive less than 15 inches of
p y l ual on ann i at t i p eci r precipitation
annually?
No/D ’t n o No/Don’t Know Know
D n’t K o Don’t Know now Un n ow n k Unknown
pr t i l i bab o probability
Definitely N Definitely No
8
Ye Yes
9
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Report
Lo Low
pr t i l i bab o probability
No No Lo Low
pr t i l i bab o probability
Ye Yes Lo Low
pr t i l i bab o probability
Ye Yes Lo Low
pr t i l i bab o probability
Ye Yes Lo Low
pr t i l i bab o probability
No No
Is p an n i y t er op r Is property in an area area
w y l e n uti o r s i n o ti a g i r r i here where
irrigation is routinely
pr i t c a practiced? ced?
Y Don’t K / s e Yes/Don’t Know now
Is p an n i y t er op r Is property in an area area
ser a w on i gat i r r i y ed b v served by irrigation
water ter
pri 947 1 to r o prior to 1947?
Defi e Y y tel ni Definitely Yes
High High
p t i l abi ob r probability
Maps of Potential Area-Wide Soil Contamination
To supplement individual property evaluations, the Task
Force recommends use of maps. The
Task Force discussed maps at length and considered many
different individual maps and
mapping options. From these deliberations a number of
themes emerged:
The
locations of area-wide soil contamination cannot be precisely mapped. Individual
property evaluations are the only way to know with
certainty whether a property is
affected by area-wide soil contamination.
Maps are a
useful communication device, and are an effective way to show where areawide
soil contamination is more or less probable so that
individuals can make
knowledgeable choices about whether to carry out
individual property evaluations.
However, care should be taken to avoid misinterpretation
of maps.
Because of
the limitations of maps, the Task Force believes strongly that maps should
always be accompanied by information that describes what
the maps show and the
limitations of data on which the maps were based.
June 30, 2003 Page 16
No No Lo Low
pr t i l i bab o probability
Defi y tel ni Definitely
No No Lo Low
pr t i l i bab o probability
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Report
The Task Force recommends two tiers of maps and
accompanying information for smelter
emissions and historical uses of lead arsenate
pesticides:
Tier 1: The
first tier of maps and accompanying information should identify the general
areas in the state where elevated levels of arsenic and
lead soil contamination are more
likely to be present based on historical smelter
emissions and historical use of lead
arsenate pesticides. Information accompanying Tier 1
maps should emphasize that maps
do not show areas that have been found to be
contaminated, but simply show where
contamination is more likely relative to other places.
Tier 1 information should be
designed to raise general awareness about area-wide soil
contamination in the widest
possible audience and to help users decide whether to
look at the second tier of more
detailed maps and informational tools for more
information.
Tier 2: The
second tier of maps and accompanying information should identify where
area-wide soil contamination is likely to be present on
more detailed, smaller scale maps
of smelter plumes and historical orchard areas, where
these areas are known. Information
accompanying Tier 2 maps should include flowcharts
and/or other informational tools to
help individuals determine whether arsenic and lead soil
contamination is likely to be
present based on the location and land-use history of
individual properties and whether to
implement individual protection measures or other
responses, including soil sampling.
Examples of Tier 1 maps are included below (see Figures
3 and 4); examples of smaller scale
Tier 2 maps are included in Appendix I. The Task Force
emphasizes that the maps included in
this report are only examples prepared to support Task
Force deliberations. The example smelter
emission maps are based largely upon ongoing mapping and
sampling efforts associated with the
Tacoma, Everett, and Harbor Island smelter cleanup
actions. The smelter emission map for the
Northport and Trail, BC smelters is based upon a
historical study of the observed effects of
sulfur dioxide emissions (another smelter emission
contaminant released along with arsenic and
lead) on vegetation. The example lead arsenate pesticide
maps show estimates of the areas
potentially affected by the use of lead arsenate
pesticides based upon three different types of data
sources: 1) the peak historical acreage in apple and
pear tree production by county during 1905-
47 (Figure 4), 2) a county-wide application of the
land-use information in the individual property
evaluation flowchart, and 3) locations of historical
orchards identified based on aerial
photographs from 1947.
It is important to reiterate that while maps show a
greater or lesser probability of encountering
elevated levels of arsenic and lead soil contamination
based on proximity to historical sources,
individual property evaluations are needed to confirm if
elevated levels of arsenic and lead are
actually present. Due to the variability of the nature
and distribution of area-wide soil
contamination, properties outside of areas identified on
maps may contain elevated levels of
arsenic and lead, while properties inside areas
identified on maps may not, in fact, have elevated
levels of arsenic and lead. The maps in this report
include disclaimers to explain these
limitations so that individuals are not given a false
sense of assurance or concern about whether
their property likely is affected by area-wide soil
contamination.
Page 17 June 30, 2003 Legend Legend
Smelte Smelter locations locations
Disclaimer Disclaimer
Figure 3: Estimate of Areas Potentially Affected by
Historical Smelter Emissions
(Based on Data Available as of January 2003)
Are Area potentiall potentially affecte affected by by
smelte smelter emissions emissions
This map should not substitute for a
site-specific assessment. Not all of the
areas identified on the map will actually
have elevated levels of arsenic and
lead in soil. Some properties outside of
the identified areas may have elevated
levels of arsenic and lead in soil.
This map was developed in 2003 to support
the Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force. It is based on information available
at that time and is intended to provide a
general indication of where elevated levels
of arsenic and lead in soil may be present
due to historical smelter emissions, so
individuals and communities can assess
whether to look in to additional information
on area-wide soil contamination. The areas
potentially affected by smelter emissions in
these maps were derived fromactual soil
sampling results for the Tacoma and Harbor
Island smelters, sampling and air modeling
for the Everett smelter, and maps of sulfur
dioxide injury to vegetation from the
Northport and Trail, BC smelters. The
areas indicated as potentially affected by
smelter emissions do not necessarily
include all affected areas, because the
complete extent of effects has not been
determined.
N
HARBOR
ISLAND
EVERETT
SEATTLE
TACOMA
June 30, 2003
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Report
NORTHPORT
Page 18 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Report
Figure 4: County Acreage Potentially Affectedby
Historical Use of Lead Arsenate Pesticide on Apple and Pear Orchards
N
Legend
Number of total acres in the county
potentially affected by past use of
lead arsenate pesticide on apple
and pear orchards
Disclaimer
This map was developed in 2003 to support
the Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force. It is based on information available
at that time and is intended to provide a
general indication of where elevated levels
of arsenic and lead in soil may be present
due to historical use of lead arsenate
pesticides, so individuals and communities
can assess whether to look in to additional
information on area-wide soil contamination.
June 30, 2003 Page 19 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Recommendations for Improving Our Understanding of the
Nature and
Extent of Area-Wide Soil Contamination in Washington
The Task Force has two types of recommendations for
improving understanding of the nature
and extent of area-wide soil contamination: 1)
recommendations that address developing and
updating maps; and 2) recommendations for additional
study of roadside lead contamination
(discussed in Section 11).
Developing and Updating Maps
The Task Force has four recommendations for developing
and updating maps of area-wide soil
contamination areas:
The maps
produced to support Task Force deliberations (many of which were based on
pre-existing maps developed to support ongoing cleanup
efforts associated with the
Tacoma and Everett smelters) represent an important
investment and should be used as
the starting point for further mapping efforts,
including any use of maps to describe areawide
soil contamination zones, as discussed in Section 10 of
this report. They are
examples of the types of maps that the Task Force
believes are needed to communicate
information about potential locations of area-wide soil
contamination.
The
Agencies should use their statewide GIS capability to maintain state maps of
areawide
soil contamination areas and to update the maps based on
newly available data from
sampling on public properties, including public schools
and parks, and other public data
sources.
The
Agencies should encourage, support, and provide financial assistance to local
governments that want to identify historical orchard
locations and, if appropriate, develop
smaller scale maps of areas potentially affected by lead
arsenate pesticide contamination.
Depending on available data sources and local needs,
these smaller scale maps may show
areas potentially affected by lead arsenate based on
land-use information and/or may
more specifically show historical orchard locations. The
Task Force believes that
accurate, smaller-scale maps of areas potentially
affected by lead arsenate pesticide
contamination would be useful, but that decisions about
whether to undertake this
mapping should remain with local governments.
The
Agencies should coordinate with local governments to maintain and update
smallerscale
maps of areas potentially affected by historical smelter
emissions and areas
potentially affected by lead arsenate pesticides. These
maps should be updated on a
reasonable timetable based on newly available
information from sampling on public
properties, including public schools and parks, and
other public data sources. Data from
sampling on private properties may also be used to
update maps, provided that the
Agencies ensure that data from sampling at residences is
not recorded at the level of
individual properties, except in certain circumstances
(see Section 8b).
Because the areas potentially affected by historical
smelter emissions are already relatively well
defined, the highest priority for funding efforts to
refine understanding of the nature and extent
of area-wide soil contamination should be to encourage,
support, and provide financial assistance
Page 20 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
to local governments to identify historical orchard
locations. In order to use financial resources
most effectively, the Agencies should consider first
providing “seed” money to local
jurisdictions to research available data sources to
determine the most appropriate means of
identifying and mapping areas potentially affected by
lead arsenate pesticide before providing
full funding for map development. Financial resources
should be made uniformly available to
local governments that choose to develop maps.
One Task Force member questioned the benefit of updating
maps of area-wide soil
contamination in the future. This Task Force member
thought than limited funds would be better
used to help defray the cost of soil testing for private
landowners. After participating in the
process, this Task Force member chose not to sign the
Task Force report because of concerns
over funding future mapping projects and the potential
economic impact of creating area-wide
soil contamination zones.
Page 21 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
6. Range of Protection Measures Considered and
Evaluation
of Protection Measures
Part of the charge to the Task Force was
to consider the full range of protection
Protection Measures Considered
measures that might be used to respond to Education
Programs: Public Meetings, Brochures and
area-wide soil contamination and to make
recommendations about the most Trespassing Signs
appropriate responses. To organize their
discussions, the Task Force identified six
categories of protection measures:
Newsletters, School-Based Programs, Posting No
broad-based, community-wide Plat Notices, Real Estate
Disclosure Forms and
Practices
Public Health Programs: Health Monitoring and Home
Visits or One-on-One Intervention
Individual Protection Measures: Personal Hygiene
Practices, Washing Garden Vegetables and Fruit,
Reducing Dirt and Dust Inside the Home
Education
programs refer to Land Use Controls: Permits and Licenses, Deed and
efforts to inform individuals and Physical Barriers:
Fencing, Vegetative Cover, Wood
businesses of the presence of Chip Cover, Clean Soil
Cover, Pavement
contamination and changes in Contamination Reduction:
Soil Blending/Tilling, Soil
behavior that can be made to limit Removal and
Replacement, Phytoremediation
or reduce exposure to the
contamination. Such programs use a wide range of
techniques to distribute information
and increase public awareness.
Public
health programs involve activities designed to identify and focus protection
measures to prevent or reduce certain disease outcomes
or exposure risks for
communities. Targeted populations within a community
considered to be at high risk
often receive additional public health assistance. This
often includes health monitoring
activities (e.g., blood lead testing or urinary arsenic
screening), one-on-one education on
steps to reduce exposure, and intervention activities to
reduce sources contributing to
elevated exposures.
Individual
protection measures are simple, day-to-day things that individuals can do to
limit or reduce exposure to soil contaminants. Examples
include washing hands with
soap and water frequently, removing shoes before
entering homes, using gloves while
gardening, scrubbing fruits and vegetables before eating
them, wet mopping to clean
surfaces indoors, and frequently bathing pets and
washing toddler toys.
Land-use
controls are actions by government or private agreements that provide
information on the presence of contamination on a
property and/or that limit or prohibit
activities that could result in exposure to
contaminants. Examples include zoning,
permits and licenses, covenants, easements, deed and
plat notices, and real-estate
disclosures.
Physical
barriers prevent or limit exposure to contaminated soil or unauthorized access
to a property. Examples include fences, grass cover,
wood chips, clean soil cover,
geotextile fabric barriers (used under wood chips or
clean soil cover), and pavement.
Contaminated soil might be consolidated into a smaller
area of a property and then
covered with a physical barrier such as a parking lot,
building, or landscape berm.
Page 22 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Contamination
reduction involves reducing the concentration of contaminants in soil
through activities such as soil blending or tilling or
phytoremediation, or removing
contaminated soil for disposal at another location.
The Task Force identified four criteria for evaluation
of protection measures: effectiveness at
limiting human exposure, effectiveness at limiting
exposure of ecological receptors (plants,
wildlife), cost, and practicality. To support Task Force
deliberations, the contractor project team
researched specific protection measures within each
category and rated each protection measure
according to the Task Force’s criteria. Each
protection measure considered was rated for three
land-use scenarios: a 0.2-acre residential property, a
2-acre residential property, and a 20-acre
undeveloped property. The results of this evaluation are
summarized in Appendix J.
Page 23 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
7. Broad-Based Education and Awareness-Building
The Task Force believes that in most cases decisions
about responses to area-wide soil
contamination should be made by the individuals who may
be exposed to the contamination or,
in the case of children, by parents or other caretakers.
Broad-based education and awarenessbuilding
will give residents the information they need to make
responsible choices about
managing their potential exposure to arsenic and lead.
These recommendations support and
underlie the recommendations on responses in specific
land-use scenarios discussed later in this
report.
Recommendations
The Task Force has four recommendations with respect to
broad-based education and awarenessbuilding:
The
Agencies should work with and through local governments, particularly local
health
jurisdictions, to increase knowledge of area-wide soil
contamination through a broadbased
education and awareness-building campaign. The goal of
broad-based education
and awareness-building should be to provide individuals,
organizations, and communities
with the information and materials they need to make
knowledgeable and responsible
choices about responding to area-wide soil
contamination.
Education
and awareness-building materials and activities should be carefully balanced to
provide accurate information while at the same time
avoiding creation of unnecessary
concerns or other unintended consequences. To meet
various needs and to target
resources, a toolbox of information and materials is
needed, and a step-wise approach to
outreach should be taken.
Education
and awareness-building should focus on risks associated with exposure of
children and of adults who have frequent contact with
soil. The most important
audiences for education and awareness-building are
people and organizations that care
for children, including parents, educators, health care
providers and childcare providers,
and gardeners and other adults who frequently work in
soil.
The
Agencies should monitor and evaluate the success of education and
awarenessbuilding
efforts.
The Task Force believes that broad-based education and
awareness-building is an appropriate
foundation recommendation for a number of reasons.
First, this approach will give individuals
the information necessary for them to make prudent and
informed choices about the use of their
property and what measures they might take to understand
and respond to the potential for areawide
soil contamination. Second, an information-based
approach creates the possibility for
Ecology to use less intrusive methods for promoting
protection of human health. Given the
limited State resources that could be devoted in the
short- and mid-term to more expensive,
resource-intensive approaches to addressing area-wide
soil contamination, the Task Force
concluded that it may be more feasible for Ecology to
focus now on promoting voluntary efforts
Page 24 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
by property owners. The Task Force believes that the
effectiveness of the education programs
and individual protection measures will be enhanced by
the step-wise approach recommended,
so that education programs combined with programs
encouraging practice of individual
protection measures and maintenance of good soil cover
are likely to be more effective than
either program would be on its own. Finally, the Task
Force emphasizes that, as recognized by
the Agencies in initiating this project, currently there
is no systematic statewide effort to address
area-wide soil contamination, the majority of
potentially affected properties are not being
addressed, and there is no comprehensive plan to address
them. In this context, any approach
that systematically encourages individuals to understand
area-wide soil contamination problems
and provides them with the support and information
necessary to make responsible choices about
limiting exposure to arsenic and lead in soil is an
improvement over the current situation.
A “Toolbox” of Information is Needed
The Agencies should develop a toolbox of information and
materials to help individuals (e.g.,
parents) and organizations (e.g., schools) understand
the potential for arsenic and lead
contamination at specific properties and identify
actions they can use to reduce their potential for
exposure to arsenic and lead. At a minimum, this toolbox
should include the following:
Maps
showing where area-wide soil contamination is most likely to be found. The Task
Force recommends a specific approach to mapping,
discussed in detail in Section 5 of
this report.
Materials
that provide context for the maps and describe the variability of the nature and
extent of area-wide soil contamination, so that
individuals outside of areas identified on
maps are not given a false sense of assurance that they
cannot encounter elevated levels
of arsenic and lead in soil and individuals inside areas
identified on maps are not given a
false sense of concern.
Materials,
including flow charts and checklists that describe how residents can use easily
observable features of a property and readily available
factual information to evaluate
whether elevated levels of arsenic and lead in soil are
likely to be present and whether
exposure to soil is likely (see Figure 2 above and Table
2 below). This process is referred
to as a “qualitative evaluation” and is discussed
further in the child-use areas section of
this report, which includes a specific qualitative
evaluation checklist.
Materials
providing guidance on how to collect and analyze soil samples at typical types
of properties (e.g., a residential yard) to determine if
elevated levels of arsenic and lead in
soil are present. Note that the Task Force does not
assume or recommend that soil testing
is necessary at each property potentially affected by
area-wide soil contamination.
Information
on the health risks associated with exposure to low- to moderate-level
arsenic and lead soil contamination, particularly the
health risks associated with
exposures of children and information on how parents can
obtain blood lead level tests
for their children.
Materials,
such as those developed by Public Health-Seattle & King County and the
Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, that encourage
good personal hygiene
practices and other individual protection measures, such
as frequent hand washing with
soap and water to reduce exposure to arsenic and lead in
soil.
Page 25 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Materials,
such as those developed by the Washington State University Cooperative
Extension, that describe individual protection measures
for gardening in soil that has
elevated levels of arsenic and lead, such as thorough
washing of vegetables to remove
dirt particles before eating.
Materials,
such as those developed by the Snohomish Health District, that describe
individual protection measures such as wearing gloves
and not eating or drinking in
contaminated areas for utility and other workers who may
frequently come into contact
with contaminated soil through their work.
Individual Protection Measures to Minimize Potential
Exposure to Arsenic and Lead in Soil
(Based on Guidelines Developed by the Public Health-
Seattle & King County, Tacoma-Pierce County
Health Department, and Snohomish Health District)
Inside Your Home:
Take off
your shoes before entering your home.
Wash hands
and face thoroughly after working or playing in the soil, especially before
eating or
preparing food. Use water and soap to wash—avoid
“waterless” soaps.
Wash your
hands after handling your pet, and bathe pets frequently.
Wash
toddler toys and pacifiers often.
Wash
clothes dirtied by contaminated soil separately from other clothes.
Clean
surfaces by wet mopping, spraying with water, or vacuuming with a HEPA filter.
Don’t
sweep or blow the surface.
Change air
filters regularly and properly maintain your heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning
system.
Maintain
painted surfaces in homes. Homes built before 1978 may contain lead-based paint.
When older paint flakes, it may become a source of lead.
Minimize
children’s exposure to hobbies that use lead (e.g., in lead solder or paint).
Eat a
balanced diet. Iron and calcium help keep lead from becoming a problem in the
body.
Outside Your Home:
Keep
children from playing in contaminated dirt.
Do not eat
or drink while working or playing in contaminated areas.
Keep pets
off of exposed dirt so they don't track it into the house.
Fill any
holes where dogs may be digging as soon they are noticed.
Special Considerations for Gardeners:
Dampen
dusty soils before gardening in soil.
Wear
gardening gloves.
Keep
vegetable gardens away from old painted structures and treated wood.
Do not
plant food crops under the roof overhang of your home.
Scrub
vegetables and fruits with soap and water before eating them.
Special Considerations for Adults Doing Construction or
Yard Work:
Avoid all
unnecessary exposure to soil or dust.
Dampen
dusty soils before and during the work project.
Wear clean,
full body protective clothing (coveralls or long sleeve shirt and pants), shoes,
and
gloves. For maximum protection, wear a dust mask or
other respiratory protection.
Materials
describing the range of additional protection measures that might be taken to
respond to area-wide soil contamination to complement
use of individual protection
Page 26 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
measures, in particular materials that describe actions
that can be taken to maintain good
soil cover. This information should include guidance on
how individuals or
organizations may locate clean soil for use in gardens.
Materials
that identify organizations—
such as local health jurisdictions, land-
Lead Information Center, and regional
offices of the Department of Ecology,
What are Additional Protection Measures?
use planning offices, the National Additional protection
measures are actions that
individuals or organizations can take to physically
alter properties in a way that reduces the potential
for people to come into contact with contaminated
the U.S. Department of Housing and soil. Additional
protection measures might include:
Urban Development (HUD), and the
(EPA)—and individuals that are
Remove and replace small amounts of available to answer questions and
Environmental Protection Agency
Contain contaminated soil under paved
surfaces, structures, or in landscaping berms.
contaminated soil, especially in children’s play
provide additional help in areas and gardens.
understanding and responding to area-
Till or blend soils to reduce surface
concentrations of arsenic and lead. wide soil
contamination.
Targeted Audiences for Education and
Outreach
and grounds keeping staff
Park
officials and operations, maintenance and
The Task Force has developed a toolbox on area-wide soil
contamination for the Agencies to
consider. This is attached as Appendix K.
In addition to materials for general use,
targeted materials should be developed for
individuals who care for children (e.g.,
parents, teachers, and child and health care Targeted
materials should be developed for the
providers), for adults who have a higher following
specific audiences:
potential to come into contact with
Parents of
young children
contaminated soil (e.g., gardeners and
Childcare providers and preschool operators
construction and utility workers), and for
School officials and operations, maintenance
others who may play a role in implementing
the Task Force’s recommendations (e.g., real
estate professionals). In particular, targeted grounds
keeping staff
Gardeners
materials for people who care for children
Real estate and financial professionals
should explain the health risks associated with
Construction, utility, and other workers who
exposures of children to arsenic and lead, how have
routine contact with soil
to use qualitative evaluations to determine the
Health care providers
potential for children to be exposed to arsenic
Homebuilders associations
Local
planning and zoning officials
and lead in soil at a specific property, and, if
Agricultural workers and landlords with farm
potential exposures exist, how to mitigate
exposures through good personal hygiene
practices, other individual protection measures, and
maintenance of good soil cover. Parents
and others should be encouraged to consider not only the
potential for exposure on their
properties, but also the potential for exposure in other
places where children play, including open
land, and at construction and work sites in area-wide
soil contamination areas. Materials
developed for adults who work in soil—including
utility, construction, and farm workers—
Page 27 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
should incorporate existing requirements for protecting
the health and safety of workers and their
families.
The Task Force emphasizes that it is important for
education and outreach materials to be written
in a way that is balanced and makes the information
easily understandable for people who may
not be accustomed to evaluating issues associated with
exposure to hazardous substances in soil.
Materials should be made available in appropriate
languages for the range of potentially affected
communities. To be effective, materials must be targeted
for specific audiences and must be
accompanied by outreach and follow-up. Ongoing outreach
is particularly important because it
is likely that elevated levels of arsenic and lead in
soil will remain at many properties for many
years. Outreach will encourage people to remain
attentive to area-wide soil contamination issues
over time, and remind them to continue their practice of
individual protection measures and
maintaining good soil cover.
Where is Area-Wide Soil Contamination Likely?
A Step-Wise Approach is Appropriate
To use resources effectively, the Agencies should take a
step-wise approach to providing
information about area-wide soil contamination, as
follows:
Step 1: The Agencies should make basic, overview
educational materials about area-wide soil
contamination available to all Washington State
residents. At a minimum, materials should be
made available using the following means:
Development
and maintenance of an area-wide soil contamination website.
Distribution
to libraries and other public information repositories.
Distribution
to Ecology regional and field offices, local health departments, and to other
locations where residents may go to seek information on
environmental and health
conditions.
Step 2: Where area-wide soil
contamination is likely, the Agencies
should supplement educational materials Based on
available data, area-wide soil contamination
with outreach. Outreach should include is likely to be
found in portions of counties potentially
routine briefings, trainings, and affected by off-site
smelter emissions, such as portions
of King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Stevens counties, and
workshops for local health jurisdictions, areas where
apple and pear trees historically were
planning and zoning agencies, operators grown, such as
portions of Chelan, Okanogan,
of child-use areas, and other appropriate Spokane, and
Yakima counties.
organizations to facilitate informed
distribution of educational materials and ensure a solid
understanding of health risks and
exposure reduction measures. The Agencies should work
with local governments and other
organizations such as parent-teacher associations to
develop strategies designed to ensure that
educational materials reach target audiences. For
example, a county planning department could
distribute a fact sheet on minimizing exposure to
arsenic and lead in soil as part of the building
permitting process.
Page 28 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Step 3: Where area-wide soil contamination is known to
exist because of soil testing, the
Agencies should provide additional outreach, education,
and resources as described below in the
discussions of specific land-use scenarios.
Monitoring and Evaluating Effectiveness
Finally, the Agencies should monitor and evaluate
whether the area-wide soil contamination
education program effectively changes behavior and
encourages greater adoption of individual
protection measures and other measures recommended by
the Task Force to reduce the potential
for exposure to arsenic and lead in soil. Information
gathered during this monitoring and
evaluation should be used to improve and update
education and awareness-building materials
and activities. Recent efforts to evaluate the
effectiveness of area-wide soil contamination
education programs in Pierce and King Counties have
focused primarily on improving the
content and format of educational materials such as
posters and brochures, based on feedback
from focus groups and written surveys. These studies
have also gathered data on the extent to
which residents report that they implement or would
implement specific individual protection
measures, such as taking off shoes before entering
one’s home. The Agencies should consider
the lessons learned from these and other evaluation
efforts as they design a statewide evaluation
and develop the toolbox and other broad-based and
targeted educational materials about areawide
soil contamination.
Page 29 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
8. Recommendations for Specific Land-Use Scenarios
This section contains Task Force recommendations for
actions that should be taken in specific
land-use scenarios in places where area-wide soil
contamination is likely. Additional actions are
recommended in situations where the Task Force was
particularly concerned about a specific
population, such as children, or to take advantage of
opportunities to leverage ongoing activities
to implement more aggressive measures to reduce the
potential for exposure to arsenic and lead
in soil. The Task Force emphasizes that these activities
are meant to build upon and
complement—not replace—broad-based education and
awareness-building.
8a. Child-Use Areas
The Task Force is particularly concerned about exposure
of young children to arsenic and lead in
soil. Children tend to have greater exposure than adults
to soil and dust because they often play
on the ground and tend to put things—such as hands,
pacifiers, and toys—that may have soil on
them into their mouths. Children are at greater risk
than adults from lead because, when
exposed, they absorb more lead than
adults, and their rapidly developing What are Current
Approaches for Child-Use Areas?
nervous systems are more sensitive to
lead damage. Parents already may be There are a number
of ongoing projects to address
area-wide soil contamination at child-use areas across
aware of the need to protect children from Washington State, including projects
associated with
lead poisoning as a result of long-standing the cleanups
of the Tacoma and Everett smelter sites
programs established to prevent children’s and other
affected properties, and projects at a number
exposure to residues from lead-based of schools and
parks built on properties affected by
paint. Actions in other states or countries past use of
lead arsenate pesticides, including schools
in Chelan and Okanogan counties and parks in to address
widespread soil contamination, Yakima. Current approaches often involve outreach
to
as well as ongoing efforts to address area- school
officials to provide information and support for
wide soil contamination in Washington implementation of
individual protection measures and
State, tend to prioritize activities that maintenance of
good soil cover, and systematic soil
protect children. The Task Force felt a sampling at
child-use areas, followed by selection and
special responsibility to recommend The Agencies
typically provide both technical and
implementation of additional protection measures.
actions that address the potential for financial
assistance for responses at child-use areas.
children to be exposed to arsenic and lead
in soil and spent much of its time considering
recommendations for child-use areas.
Types of Child-Use Areas and Prioritizing Activities at
Publicly Maintained Areas
The Task Force considered a number of types of child-use
areas: primary schools and their
associated playgrounds and playfields; public
playgrounds and playfields (such as those at
parks); childcare facilities, including preschools and
family home childcare facilities; and camps.
The Task Force also distinguished between publicly
maintained child-use areas, such as public
schools and parks, and privately maintained areas, such
as private schools, playgrounds, and
childcare facilities.
Page 30 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
In general, the Task Force believes that the same
responses are appropriate at both public and
private child-use areas and that over time potential
exposure should be addressed at all child-use
areas where area-wide soil contamination is likely.
However, the Task Force also recognizes
that it may not be practical to address all child-use
areas immediately. Accordingly, the Task
Force recommends that publicly maintained child-use
areas should be prioritized and responses
in these areas should set the standard for protection of
children.
What Does It Mean for the Agencies to
Provide Support, Encouragement, and Assistance
to Local Jurisdictions?
Recommendations
In addition to the education and awareness-building
discussed earlier in this report, the Task
Force recommends five responses for child-use areas
where area-wide soil contamination is
likely:
Individual
protection measures and maintenance of good soil cover in areas where
children play to reduce the potential for children to be
exposed to contaminated soil.
Qualitative
evaluations to increase understanding of where exposure could occur and to
focus implementation of soil testing and additional
protection measures.
Soil
testing where qualitative evaluations indicate the potential for exposure to
contaminated soil and implementation of additional
protection measures if contamination
Mandatory
soil testing at new public child-use area construction sites and implementation
is found.
of additional protection measures if contamination is
found.
Special
approaches, including targeted outreach and a voluntary certification program,
for
family home childcare facilities and childcare centers.
Individual Protection Measures and Good Soil Cover
The first step to minimize the potential
for children to be exposed to elevated
levels of arsenic and lead in soil should be
implementation of individual protection
measures and maintenance of good soil Local governments,
such as health districts and school
cover in areas where children play. The districts, often
will play a key part in implementing Task
Task Force emphasizes that it is not Force
recommendations. In many places in this report
necessary to confirm that elevated levels the Task Force
advises the Agencies to provide
“support, encouragement, and assistance” to local
of arsenic and lead are present in soil jurisdictions.
Besides financial support—the need for
before implementing individual which the Task Force
expects will be widespread—the
protection measures and providing for Task Force has not
attempted to precisely define what
good soil cover. Rather, where area-wide “support,
encouragement, and assistance” might
soil contamination is likely, the Task is for the
Agencies to reach out to local jurisdictions in
involve. The Task Force emphasizes that the first step
Force strongly recommends that these areas where
area-wide soil contamination is likely to
measures be instituted immediately unless provide
information on the issue and the Task Force
1) qualitative property evaluations recommendations, and
to ask what types of assistance
indicate that elevated soil levels of arsenic and
support the local jurisdiction might need.
June 30, 2003 Page 31 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
and lead are not likely or it is unlikely that children
could be exposed to soil, or 2) quantitative
soil testing shows that elevated levels of arsenic and
lead in soil are not present.
The Task Force believes this is a reasonable approach
primarily for two reasons. First, as
discussed above, children are the population most
vulnerable to adverse health effects from soil
contamination, particularly from exposure to lead.
Second, implementing individual protection
measures and providing for good soil cover in play areas
are, to a great extent, consistent with
the types of personal hygiene practices and routine
maintenance activities that should already be
in place at schools, parks, childcare facilities, and
other child-use areas.
The Task Force recommends that the Agencies work with
local health jurisdictions to support,
encourage, and assist with implementation of individual
protection measures. This may include
providing training, briefings, or other assistance or
materials to local health jurisdictions. In
addition, the Agencies should work with local
jurisdictions and other organizations, such as the
Washington Association of Maintenance and Operations
Administrators, to support, encourage,
and assist with activities that maintain good soil cover
and to integrate these activities into
ongoing landscaping and maintenance practices. This may
include providing training or
information on the relative effectiveness of various
soil covers and methods to maintain effective
soil cover. Grass, for example, may not be an effective
cover for contaminated soil on an athletic
field or other child-use area if it is not properly
maintained.
Qualitative Evaluations of Potential Exposure
The Task Force strongly encourages property
owners/managers of other child-use areas to carry
out qualitative evaluations of the potential for
exposure to arsenic and lead in soil in places
routinely used by children. Qualitative evaluations
should use easily identifiable factors (such as
elevation at properties potentially affected by
historical use of lead arsenate pesticides) to
determine if elevated levels of arsenic and lead in soil
are likely, and easily observable features
(such as the presence or absence of bare dirt) to
identify situations when there is the greatest
potential for exposure. Qualitative evaluations should
help identify situations where there is or
could be direct, frequent contact with contaminated soil
over a period of months. The Task
Force recommends that the following checklist be used to
carry out qualitative evaluations.
Table 2: Qualitative Evaluation Checklist for
Understanding Potential Exposures to Arsenic and
Lead in Soil
Please visit and walk around the site, preferably during
daylight hours, before answering these questions.
Pierce, King, Snohomish, or Stevens counties?
Q1. Is the property near a historical smelter location
in If YES or UNSURE, go to Q4.
If NO, go to Q2.
historically (e.g., on apple or pear trees)?
Q2. Were lead arsenate pesticides used on the property
If YES or LIKELY, go to Q4.
If NO, go to Q3.
built before 1995?
Q3. Are portions of the property within 25 feet of a
road If YES or UNSURE, go to Q4.
If NO, elevated levels of arsenic and lead are not
likely to be
present in soil.
Page 32 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Table 2: Qualitative Evaluation Checklist for
Understanding Potential Exposures to Arsenic and
Lead in Soil
Q4. Do children routinely play in this area? If YES or
UNSURE, go to Q7.
If NO, go to Q5.
Q5: Do people spend a lot of time in this area (e.g.,
while If YES or UNSURE, go to Q7.
gardening)?
If NO, go to Q6.
Q6: Are there frequently used, unpaved paths or trails
If YES or UNSURE, go to Q7.
through this area?
If NO, potential exposure to elevated levels of lead and
arsenic
in soil is less likely.
Q7: Is there any exposed dirt in play and
high-use/traffic If YES or UNSURE, there may be a higher potential for
areas (e.g., swing sets, gardens, sports fields, lawns,
exposure to contaminated soils. Use individual protection
and paths)? measures to minimize potential exposure and
determine
Note: Asphalt, wood chips, grass cover, or other whether
to test soils.
natural/synthetic barriers may help limit potential
exposure
to contaminated soil. The Consumer Product Safety If NO,
go to Q8.
Commission recommends that surfaces around
playground equipment have at least 5-12 inches of wood
chips, mulch, sand, or pea gravel, or are covered with
mats made of safety-tested rubber or rubber-like
materials.
Q8: Would you expect soils to be exposed at any time If
YES, there may be a higher potential for exposure to
during the year (e.g., due to seasonal sports or other
contaminated soils. Use individual protection measures to
activities)?
minimize potential exposure and determine whether to
test
soils.
If UNSURE, check with the landowner or organization
responsible for maintaining the property to see whether
a
maintenance program is in place to ensure that play and
highuse/
traffic areas remain thoroughly covered year round.
If NO, the potential for exposure to contaminated soils
is less
likely.
Page 33
Soil Testing and Implementation of Additional Protection
Measures
Where qualitative evaluations indicate that children may
be routinely exposed to contaminated
soil, the Task Force recommends that property
owners/managers of child-use areas conduct soil
sampling to determine if elevated levels of arsenic and
lead are actually present. Guidance on
how to carry out soil sampling is part of the toolbox of
information discussed in Section 7 of this
report and included in Appendix K.
Where soil sampling results indicate that elevated
levels of arsenic or lead are present, property
owners/managers of child-use areas should implement
additional protection measures to reduce
the potential for children to come into contact with
contaminated soil. Additional protection
measures to reduce potential exposure could include:
installing protective barriers such as
geotextile fabric between contaminated soil and the
overlying protective cover; removing and
replacing small amounts of contaminated soil; or
consolidating and containing contaminated soil
under buildings, paved surfaces, or landscaping berms.
The Agencies should assist local
jurisdictions, other organizations, and individuals to
select and implement additional appropriate
protection measures where soil contamination is found.
June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force
Report
In addition, the Agencies should work with school
districts, park agencies, and other appropriate
organizations to facilitate understanding of area-wide
soil contamination and to prioritize
response actions at schools, parks, and other child-use
areas. In particular, parents of young
children should be kept informed during all stages of
assessment and cleanup processes through
Parent-Teacher Association meetings, school newsletters,
community events, and other
appropriate means. As with the broad-based education and
awareness-building materials
described earlier in this report, outreach activities
should balance the need for accurate and
complete information with the need to avoid
unnecessarily frightening parents and other
audiences, or creating unintended consequences or
overreactions.
Finally, the Agencies should work with local
jurisdictions to continue collection of soil data at
public child-use areas where area-wide soil
contamination is likely, to better understand the
extent of area-wide soil contamination and the potential
for children to be exposed.
Special Considerations for Playgrounds and Playfields
The Task Force believes children have a high potential
to come into contact with contaminated
soil at playgrounds and playfields. By the nature of
their use, playgrounds and playfields often
have areas of bare dirt to which children could be
exposed. Because these areas are typically
publicly owned and operated, the Task Force believes
there is a special responsibility to ensure
that children who use these areas are protected.
The Handbook for Public Playground Safety published by
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) contains guidelines for maintaining
children’s safety in public playgrounds.
It recommends that wood chips, mulch, sand, gravel, or
shredded tires be installed and
maintained to a depth of at least 5-12 inches (depending
on the surfacing material selected) under
playground equipment. The Health and Safety Guide for
K-12 Schools in Washington, published
by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
and the Department of Health,
recommends that all playground equipment at primary and
secondary schools in Washington
conform to CPSC’s playground safety standards.
The Task Force recommends that the CPSC surface material
guidelines be fully implemented at
existing playgrounds at parks, schools, private camps,
and childcare facilities. In areas where
area-wide soil contamination is likely, the Task Force
recommends that a geotextile fabric barrier
(such as landscaping fabric or weed block) be
incorporated below the surfacing material under
play equipment to further limit the potential for
contact with soil. For other play areas, such as
sports fields, the Task Force recommends that efforts be
made to minimize the potential for
children to come into contact with contaminated soil, by
maintaining good year-round grass
cover and ensuring clean soil in areas of bare dirt,
such as baseball field baselines. Sports fields
primarily used by adults and older children may not need
the same types of actions to reduce
exposure because, in general, exposure is expected to
decrease with age.
Soil Testing and Additional Protection Measures at New
Child-Use Areas
Construction of new child-use areas, such as schools and
playgrounds commonly involves earthmoving
activities. These activities create important
opportunities to address area-wide soil
contamination. Incorporating soil sampling into the site
selection and design process for new
construction allows officials to modify construction
plans to incorporate cost-effective, practical,
Page 34 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
and effective measures to reduce the potential for
exposure of children, and this may be more
efficient than retrofitting existing child-use areas.
Where area-wide soil contamination is likely, the Task
Force recommends that officials (e.g.,
school district superintendents or park managers) be
required to test soils at proposed child-use
sites during the site selection and design process. This
is especially relevant at publicly funded
child-use areas. Where soil sampling shows that elevated
soil levels of arsenic and lead are
present, officials should incorporate protection
measures into construction plans and budgets.
Protection measures might include installing a
geotextile fabric barrier and surfacing material
such as wood chips, mulch, or grass cover in play areas;
removing and replacing small amounts
of contaminated soil; consolidating and containing
contaminated soil under buildings, paved
surfaces, or landscaping berms; or other activities.
At school sites, the Agencies should work with local
health jurisdictions and with OSPI to assist
school officials to interpret sampling results and to
select appropriate protection measures. Local
health inspectors should confirm during regular site
visits that appropriate responses have been
implemented. The Agencies should assist local health
jurisdictions with these inspections.
Targeted Outreach and Voluntary Certification Programs
for Childcare Providers
Many children spend significant amounts of time in
commercial or family home childcare
settings. This is particularly true for children who
have not yet reached school age and who may
be particularly vulnerable to exposures to arsenic and
lead. Where area-wide soil contamination
is likely, the Agencies should collaborate with DSHS and
local health districts to work with
childcare providers to give them information about
area-wide soil contamination and encourage
them to take actions to reduce the potential for
children to be exposed to arsenic and lead. The
Agencies should also collaborate with DSHS to establish
a voluntary certification process that
childcare providers can use to communicate that they
have taken precautions to reduce the
potential for children to be exposed to area-wide soil
contamination or have verified through
sampling that elevated soil levels of arsenic and lead
are not present.
The Task Force recommends that targeted outreach to
childcare centers and family homes should
be integrated into and build upon existing processes
that provide for the health and safety of
children, including regular inspections of childcare
facilities by DSHS and local health
jurisdictions and the DSHS licensing process. In
particular, the Task Force recommends that
training on how to identify and minimize potential
exposure to area-wide soil contamination
using individual protection measures, good soil cover,
and other protection measures be
incorporated into the existing State Training and
Registry System (STARS) childcare training
program and/or other annual training requirements for
childcare providers.
The goals of the voluntary childcare certification
program should be to: 1) create a mechanism to
raise awareness of area-wide soil contamination issues
among childcare providers, 2) provide
parents and other caretakers with information about how
individual businesses have chosen to
address area-wide soil contamination issues, and 3)
assist parents to make informed choices
about in which childcare facility to place their
children. The Task Force recommends a threestep
education and certification process:
Page 35 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Step 1:
Childcare operators receive and review information prepared by the Agencies
and/or complete training (through the existing STARS
childcare training program and/or
other annual training) on how to identify and minimize
potential exposure using
individual protection measures, good soil cover, and
other protection measures.
Step 2:
Childcare operators conduct qualitative assessments and/or contact local health
districts to help them identify and take steps to
minimize children’s potential exposure to
arsenic and lead in soil.
Step 3:
Childcare operators certify that soils have been tested using approved soil
sampling protocols and have been found not to contain
elevated levels of arsenic and lead
or that the recommended protection measures have been
implemented.
Upon completion of Step 3, the childcare operator can
request that DSHS issue a letter
recognizing that the childcare operator has certified
the steps that have been taken at the facility
to minimize children’s potential exposure to lead and
arsenic. To encourage further adoption
(and maintenance) of the actions and measures the Task
Force is recommending, DSHS
childcare inspectors and local health jurisdictions
should review information about which
childcare facilities have self-certified in order to
tailor outreach, education, and other discussions
during regular facility inspections. DSHS should also
function as a clearinghouse for information
on which childcare facilities have participated in the
voluntary certification program and should
make this information publicly available.
The Task Force emphasizes that education and the
opportunity for voluntary certification should
be made available to all childcare providers, not just
those who are covered by current licensing
requirements. To minimize disruption at licensed
facilities, certifications should be timed to
renew and expire in conjunction with the childcare
licensing cycle (i.e., every three years). If the
soil at a childcare facility has been tested and found
not to contain elevated levels of arsenic and
lead, the certification should be permanent and not need
to be renewed.
The Task Force acknowledges that many childcare
facilities, particularly those not covered by
current licensing requirements, may have significant
resource limitations and may be difficult to
locate and reach. One potential benefit of broad-based
education and awareness-building is that
it can create momentum for evaluating and responding to
area-wide soil contamination issues
within the childcare market, by creating increased
demand on the part of parents for childcare
facilities that have taken steps to understand and, when
necessary, respond to area-wide soil
contamination. The Agencies should consider the
differences between types of childcare
facilities in collaborating with DSHS and local health
jurisdictions to develop education and
outreach strategies, and should make financial resources
available to childcare providers to
support responses to area-wide soil contamination.
8b. Residential Properties
The Task Force is concerned about the number of
properties potentially affected by area-wide
soil contamination and the practicality and cost of
implementing protection measures at
residential properties. At the same time, the Task Force
recognizes that most residential
properties are, essentially, child-use areas and that
both children and adults are most likely to
Page 36 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
come into regular contact with soil at home, through
play, gardening, and other activities.
However, the Task Force also recognizes that residents
can choose whether and how to
implement protection measures at their properties to
address low-to-moderate levels of soil
contamination. Therefore, the Task Force emphasizes that
the Agencies should focus on helping
residents to understand the potential for elevated
levels of arsenic and lead in soil at individual
properties and take appropriate response actions. With
these considerations in mind, the Task
Force decided that responses to area-wide soil
contamination at residential properties should be
similar to, and no more stringent than, the approaches
described above for child-use areas and
that particular attention should be paid to three
populations: children, gardeners, and other adults
who frequently work in soil.
Recommendations
In addition to broad-based education and
awareness-building to increase residents’ knowledge
about area-wide soil contamination, the Task Force
recommends that the Agencies:
Offer both
technical and financial assistance to support and encourage residents
potentially affected by area-wide soil contamination to:
o Implement individual protection measures and maintain
good soil cover in areas
where children play to reduce the potential for exposure
to contaminated soil.
o Conduct qualitative evaluations to increase
understanding of where exposure could
occur and to focus implementation of soil testing and
additional protection measures.
o Conduct soil testing where qualitative evaluations
indicate there is potential for
exposure to contaminated soil and implement additional
protection measures if
contamination is found.
Provide
information on where and how to dispose of contaminated soil that individuals
choose to remove from their properties and help
residents locate sources of soil that
meets the MTCA cleanup standards for arsenic and lead.
The Task Force emphasizes that these are not
recommendations for creating new regulatory
requirements for residential properties or residents.
The Agencies should focus on providing
incentives for residents to implement Task Force
recommendations and supporting residents who
choose to implement recommended activities through
education, outreach, and financial
assistance.
Individual Protection Measures and Good Soil Cover
As with child-use areas, at residential properties the
first step in taking action to minimize the
potential for children and adults to come into contact
with contaminated soil is to practice
individual protection measures and to maintain good soil
cover. It is not necessary to confirm
that elevated levels of arsenic and lead are present in
soil before taking these actions. Rather,
where area-wide soil contamination is likely, the Task
Force recommends that all residents
follow individual protection measures and maintain good
soil cover unless 1) qualitative property
evaluations indicate that elevated soil levels of lead
and arsenic are not likely or exposure to soil
Page 37 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
is not likely, or 2) quantitative soil testing shows
that elevated soil levels of arsenic and lead are
not present.
Qualitative Evaluations
Residents of properties affected by area-wide soil
contamination should carry out qualitative
evaluations to determine the potential for their
property to have elevated levels of arsenic and
lead in soil and the potential for exposure to
contaminated soil. Qualitative evaluations should
use easily identifiable features (such as property
elevation in areas potentially affected by
historical use of lead arsenate pesticides) to determine
if elevated soil levels of arsenic and lead
are likely and easily observable features (such as the
presence or absence of bare dirt) to
determine if exposure to contaminated soil is likely. A
qualitative evaluation checklist is
included in Section 8a, above.
Soil Testing and Additional Protection Measures
Where qualitative evaluations show that elevated levels
of arsenic and lead in soil and/or
exposures to contaminated soil are likely, residents
should consider soil sampling. Soil sampling
will provide a basis for residents’ decisions about
what steps, if any, beyond implementation of
individual protection measures and maintenance of good
soil cover should be taken to reduce
potential exposures. It may also help confirm the
absence of elevated levels of arsenic and lead,
thereby obviating the need for other responses. Guidance
on how to carry out soil sampling is
included in the toolbox of information discussed in
Section 7 of this report and included in
Appendix K.
The Agencies should provide incentives and opportunities
for individuals who choose to sample
soils on their properties. Specifically, the Agencies
should work with local health jurisdictions to
provide do-it-yourself sampling kits to residents upon
request. These kits should include
instructions on how to collect soil samples, tools for
collecting samples, clear explanations of
why the sampling procedures should be followed, and
instructions on how to have soil samples
analyzed. Furthermore, the Agencies should establish a
mechanism to subsidize the costs of
sampling at residential properties in area-wide soil
contamination areas so that residents only
need to pay, at most, nominal fees for soil analysis.
Fees should be comparable to the costs to
residents of other environmental monitoring programs,
such as water quality testing. The
Agencies could, for example, make X-ray fluorescence (XRF)
machines available routinely
throughout the year at easily accessible locations and
charge residents only minimal fees for the
on-site soil analysis. As an alternative, or to
supplement use of XRF machines, the Agencies
could provide vouchers to residents for reduced or
low-cost analysis of soil samples at
independent laboratories.
Finally, the Agencies should work with local health
jurisdictions to assist property owners to
interpret soil testing results and select any
appropriate protection measures. The Agencies
should provide the appropriate context for sampling
results so that residents understand the
potential health risks from exposure to contaminated
soils without becoming unduly alarmed.
Confidentiality and Reporting of Sampling Results
To protect the privacy of residents who choose to take
advantage of soil sampling opportunities,
data from soil testing conducted by individuals for
their own use should be kept confidential and
Page 38 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
should not be associated with specific property
locations in Agencies’ records (i.e., residents’
Real Estate Disclosure Requirements
names and addresses should not be recorded in Regardless
of how the Agencies track and
writing), unless 1) individuals volunteer to have record
sampling data, individual property
the data used to update maps of area-wide soil owners
who have information about the
contamination, 2) they request a No Further presence of
elevated levels of arsenic, lead, or
other contaminants on a property are required Action
letter for the property from Ecology, or 3) under existing real estate
disclosure laws to
the sampling results reflect concentrations that
disclose this information to buyers during real
are not associated with area-wide soil estate
transactions.
contamination (i.e., that are not low-to-moderate).
The Agencies’ assistance with the interpretation of
sampling results should be provided in ways
that prevent property-specific data from becoming
public. This is not the case for public and
public-use properties such as public child-use areas,
where the Agencies have the responsibility
to educate parents and others about any contamination
that is present.
If it is necessary for the Agencies to include
information on sampling results from private
residences in their records to provide financial and
technical assistance, or as a way to provide
for information that might be used to make maps of
locations of potential area-wide soil
contamination more precise, these data should be
recorded only at the section, township, and
range level. This level of detail should allow the
Agencies to update area-wide soil
contamination maps and help further target outreach
activities and financial resources, while
protecting the privacy of residents who choose to test
soil on their properties.
Support for Additional Protection Measures Individuals
Choose to Implement
Where soil sampling results indicate that elevated
levels of arsenic or lead are present, residents
should be encouraged to consider implementing additional
protection measures to further reduce
the potential for exposure to contaminated soil. In some
instances, individuals may choose to
take additional actions to further contain or remove
contaminated soil. Additional protection
measures might include installing protective barriers
such as geotextile fabric (e.g., weed cloth)
between soil and landscaping materials, particularly in
areas where children play. Alternatively,
additional protection measures might include replacing
contaminated soil with clean soil in
gardening areas or filling raised garden beds with clean
soil.
The Agencies should support individuals who choose to
implement additional protection
measures by providing guidance on affordable, effective,
and practical solutions for covering
contaminated soils, removing and replacing small
quantities of soil, and other appropriate
activities. The Agencies should also provide information
on where and how to dispose of
contaminated soil that individuals choose to remove from
their properties.
To support individuals who choose to replace small
quantities of contaminated soil with clean
soil, the Agencies should look for ways to help
residents locate sources of soil that meet the
MTCA cleanup standards for arsenic and lead by
identifying soil suppliers or other means.
Residents may also choose to test fill soils to
determine whether it is suitable for its intended use.
Page 39 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
8c. Commercial Areas
As discussed above, the Task Force is most concerned
about exposure of children to arsenic and
lead in soil. In general, commercial areas are not
frequently used for play by children and tend to
be covered with impervious surfaces such as buildings,
parking lots, or other man-made and
maintained cover, such as landscaping bark or gravel.
Recommendations
For commercial areas affected by area-wide soil
contamination, the Task Force recommends:
Where
commercial areas are covered with surfaces such as buildings, parking lots, or
other effective soil cover, the Task Force recommends
that no further response actions
are necessary to address area-wide soil contamination.
For
mixed-use areas, such as a childcare facility located in a shopping center, the
Task
Force recommendations for non-commercial use should be
considered for the noncommercial
operation. In other words, in this example, the
child-use area
recommendations should be considered for a childcare
facility located in a largely
commercial area.
8d. Open Land
Open land includes undeveloped properties, agricultural
land that is no longer in production, and
other developed properties that are currently vacant or
abandoned. Agricultural land that is
intended to be returned to active production within
regular growing cycles (e.g., fallow land in
dry-land wheat growing areas) is not considered open
land and is not addressed by these
recommendations. The Task Force considered two
categories of open land: open land that is
being developed and open land that is not proposed for
development. Although there is the
potential for both human health and ecological impacts
from area-wide soil contamination at
open land, this section only addresses risks from human
exposure. Ecological concerns are
discussed in Section 11 below.
Recommendations
In addition to broad-based education and
awareness-building, the Task Force recommends that
the Agencies support and encourage the following
activities for open land in areas where areawide
soil contamination is likely.
Amending
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist to include a question
designed to prompt consideration of the potential for
area-wide soil contamination during
new development.
For open
land being developed, qualitative evaluations to increase understanding of
whether area-wide soil contamination is likely, soil
testing before construction where
Page 40 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
area-wide soil contamination is likely, and implementing
additional protection measures
if contamination is found.
Use of plat
or other notices to record information on property status.
For open
land being developed, implementation of existing requirements and policies
governing worker protection and safety, and control of
dust, erosion, and surface water
runoff during construction.
For open
land not being developed that is in or near residential areas, use of practical,
cost-effective measures to limit trespassing, the
potential for exposure to contaminated
soil, and windblown dust.
Open Land Being Developed into Other Land Uses
In general, the Task Force believes that responses to
area-wide soil contamination at open land
being developed should be consistent with the responses
the Task Force recommends for the end
land use, since the end land use most affects the
potential for exposure. For example, the
recommended responses described in Section 8a above for
child-use areas are appropriate to
consider when open land is being developed into schools,
parks, childcare facilities, or other
child-use areas. Because development activities
generally include manipulation of the soil and
grade at a site, new development also may offer
opportunities to implement certain protection
measures more easily and for less cost than at developed
properties. Additional precautions are
also warranted to prevent or reduce exposure of people
who live near or work at construction
sites and may be exposed to contaminated soil (including
windblown dust) during construction
activities.
The Task Force believes that the most appropriate way to
address potential exposures during and
after development is to integrate responses to area-wide
soil contamination into the land-use
review and development process. The Task Force
recommendations include a series of actions
that developers, construction workers, and property
owners should take to reduce potential
exposure and recommendations for how to work with
existing land-use planning and permitting
processes to encourage implementation of the
recommendations.
Recommended Activities for Developers, Construction
Workers, and Property
Owners
The Task Force recommends that developers conduct
qualitative evaluations of properties and,
where warranted, carry out soil testing prior to
construction. Depending on the results of these
evaluations, developers should incorporate appropriate
additional protection measures into site
development and construction plans to reduce the
potential for exposure to area-wide soil
contamination after properties are developed.
Developers, for example, could take advantage of
the opportunities construction activities provide to
contain and cap contaminated soil under
roads, structures, or landscaping berms. Other options
that might be considered include tilling or
blending soils to reduce surface concentrations of
arsenic and lead, installing protective barriers
and good soil cover, and removing and replacing small
quantities of soil, all of which are more
cost effective if implemented during rather than after
properties have been developed. In
general, as indicated in the Task Force’s principles,
the level of effectiveness and permanence of
the responses should be greatest for proposed land uses
where there is the greatest potential for
Page 41 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Large Construction Sites
exposure of children, gardeners, and other adults who
have frequent contact with soil. The
Agencies should set an example for private developers by
adopting these practices for their
construction projects.
During construction, the Task Force recommends
that construction workers implement individual
protection measures to reduce their potential for The
Task Force received a number of
exposure to contaminated soil, consistent with comments
from individuals concerned about
U.S. Occupational Safety & Health proper
transportation and disposal of
contaminated soil during construction projects
Administration (OSHA) and Washington and the potential for windblown dust during
Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) construction,
particularly at large construction
requirements. Moreover, as a precautionary sites. The
Task Force is sympathetic to these
measure, the heightened awareness and safety concerns
and believes that existing regulations
precautions required for construction at properties
should be fully implemented and enforced to
ensure safe management of soil with elevated where
hazardous substances are known to be levels of arsenic and lead and to control
present should also be applied at properties where
windblown dust.
area-wide soil contamination is likely, unless soil
sampling shows that elevated levels of contaminants are
not present. Finally, the Agencies
should work with State and local air and other
authorities to ensure that regulations to control
dust, erosion, and run-off during construction are
implemented and enforced to minimize
potential exposure at and near construction sites.
Encouraging Implementation of the Task Force
Recommendations for New
Development
To encourage implementation of the Task Force
recommendations, the Task Force recommends
that the Agencies educate people who work on SEPA issues
in local government, as well as other
local planning and permitting officials, about area-wide
soil contamination and how to respond
appropriately to it. The Task Force believes that local
land-use planning and permitting
processes represent an important opportunity to educate
developers about the Task Force
recommendations and assist developers with
implementation of recommended activities. Local
planning and permitting officials should be provided
with educational materials to distribute to
developers, property owners, and others early in the
site development process. Materials should
provide guidance on qualitative evaluations, soil
sampling, and how to select and implement
protection measures.
Furthermore, the Task Force recommends that the SEPA
checklist, which is used to determine
whether government actions require an environmental
impact statement, be modified to
incorporate a question about whether the property is
likely affected by area-wide soil
contamination. For construction activities that are
exempt from SEPA requirements, such as the
construction of fewer than four single-family homes, the
Agencies should work with local
governments to leverage appropriate land-use or building
processes to reach these development
activities. The Task Force also encourages local
jurisdictions to use plat or other notices to
record information on the status of properties where
area-wide soil contamination is likely, as
part of the land-use approval and development process.
Notices should, for example, record
whether contamination is likely to be present, whether a
property has been sampled, and/or
whether protection measures are in place.
Page 42 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Specific Protocols for Addressing Area-Wide Soil
Contamination
During the focus group meetings about the preliminary
Task Force recommendations, a number of
officials from local building and planning departments
emphasized their need for clear, standard
protocols for addressing area-wide soil contamination.
The officials agreed that they were often in the
best position to work with land developers and builders
to address area-wide soil contamination, but
explained that they were not, and were not likely to
become, experts on qualitative evaluations, soil
testing, or protective measures. Officials mentioned
general permits under the Clean Water Act as an
example of a successful standard protocol. Standard
protocols (guidance) for qualitative evaluations
and soil testing are included in the Task Force’s
recommended “toolbox.” The Task Force supports
standard protocols, but recognizes that in many cases it
will be difficult to standardize selection and
implementation of protective measures, due to the
site-specific nature of these decisions. The Task
Force recommends that Ecology work with local building
and planning departments to continue to
explore the concept of standard protocols, with a view
toward providing as much certainty and
predictability as possible to local planning officials,
builders, and developers.
Open Land Not Proposed for Development
At open land not proposed for development that is not in
or near residential areas, the potential
for exposure to area-wide soil contamination is
generally low, because these areas are not likely
to be frequented by children or other sensitive
populations. The Task Force believes that broadbased
education and awareness-building activities should be
sufficient to address potential health
risks from human exposure to area-wide soil
contamination in these areas.
For open land not proposed for development that is in or
near residential areas, children could be
exposed to area-wide soil contamination if they play or
trespass on this land. The Task Force
recommends that the Agencies encourage property owners
to take practical steps to limit
trespassing on their properties, such as posting signs
at open lots in residential areas. Concerned
parents should take steps to ensure that their children
do not trespass on open lands. Where
appropriate, property owners might also consider taking
practical, cost-effective steps to limit the
potential for soil exposure and windblown dust, such as
keeping open land covered with grass,
hay, or other vegetation.
8e. Root Vegetables
Some root vegetables have the potential to take up lead
from the soil. Lead concentrations
exceeding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s
in-house level of concern for lead in
processed foods were found in a shipment of Washington
root vegetables in 1998. That
shipment was traced back to one commercial crop of
carrots that had been grown on a former
orchard site. The Northwest Food Processors Association
(NWFPA) developed an internal task
force to review and assess the scientific data and
develop recommendations to address any
possible future sources of contamination for root
vegetables. Nearly all commercial food
processors in Washington are associated with this
organization. The Food and Drug
Administration, through its Market Basket program, also
continues to test foods marketed locally
and nationally.
Page 43 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
The NWFPA published Interim Recommendations (since
finalized) on February 17, 1999 to
inform commercial growers and processors about the
possibility of risk from lead uptake when
root vegetables are planted on old orchard sites. A copy
of this advisory bulletin is included in
Appendix L. The Task Force considered this voluntary,
privately initiated effort and views it as
a potential model for using private-sector efforts to
prevent possible human exposure problems
from arising. However, the Task Force did not have
further information on the results of the
voluntary action or additional Market Basket testing
results. Accordingly, the Task Force
recommends a survey to determine the effectiveness of
the NWFPA advisory program, with an
eye toward possibly using it as a model for similar
programs in the future. The Task Force
recommends that the Washington State Department of
Agriculture (WSDA) request from
NWFPA an analysis of the NWFPA voluntary program
regarding its effectiveness in preventing
human exposure to heavy metals in root crops.
The NWFPA bulletin, however, was distributed only to
commercial processors. It is unlikely,
due to the membership of the NWFPA, to have been
distributed to home gardeners or local
farmer’s market growers whose properties may have
become affected by area-wide soil
contamination. The Task Force believes that home
gardeners and local farmer’s market growers
may want to take precautions to avoid similar uptake
problems. Information about protective
measures—which may include testing soil, replacing
soil, growing crops on raised beds with
clean soil, using compost or manure to dilute
concentrations, and other actions—should be
developed and distributed to growers to help prevent
consumption of root crops with elevated
concentrations of lead and arsenic. Such information
already is available from the Washington
State University Extension Service, WSDA, or other
agencies, and distribution of such
information should be coordinated, wherever possible,
with the other information distribution
programs administered by Ecology, the Department of
Health, and local health officials.
Page 44 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
9. Real Estate Disclosure Recommendations
Over the course of its deliberations, the Task Force
discussed Washington State real estate
disclosure practices related to lead-based paint (in
part as a response to the Residential Lead-
Based Paint Reduction Act of 1992-Title X) as well as
similar types of environmental disclosure
forms used elsewhere around the country. Current
Washington State disclosure practices are
centered around the mandatory use of the Real Property
Transfer Disclosure Statement (WAR
Form D-5 and NWMLS Form 17) for one to four
single-family properties and the Disclosure of
Information on Lead-Based Paint and Lead-Based Paint
Hazards for homes built prior to 1978.
The Real Property Transfer Disclosure Statement requires
sellers to disclosure any knowledge of
the presence of hazardous substances (including soils
with concentrations of hazardous
substances above cleanup levels). Although it is not
typical for sellers and real estate
professionals to use the Lead-Based Paint and Lead-Based
Paint Hazards booklet to address
elevated levels of lead in soil, the definition of
“lead-based paint hazard” in the Residential Lead
based Paint Reduction Act of 1992–Title X includes
“any condition that causes exposure to lead
from lead-contaminated dust, lead-contaminated soil, and
lead-contaminated paint that is
deteriorated or present in accessible surfaces. . .that
would result in adverse human health effects
as established by the appropriate Federal agency.”
Recommendations
Real estate transactions create another important
opportunity to educate Washington State
residents about low-to-moderate arsenic and lead soil
contamination and ways to protect
themselves, their families, and others from potential
exposure to such contamination. The Task
Force supports the use of real estate disclosure
practices to raise Washington State residents’
awareness of potential lead and arsenic contamination on
properties. To help enact these
practices, the Task Force recommends that the Agencies
take the following specific steps:
Encourage
the Washington Association of Realtors to work with interested legislators to
enact legislation requiring a real property transfer
disclosure statement for open land (in
addition to the existing requirements for residential
properties) and encourage the
voluntary use of the existing seller’s property
condition report for open land until such
legislation is adopted. For example, in Chelan County, a
voluntary environmental
disclaimer form is used during real estate transactions
to inform sellers and buyers of
potential local environmental conditions including
orchards, mold, and radon.
Work with
and through the Washington Association of Realtors to strongly encourage
real estate agents to use the lead-based paint
disclosure form and the EPA lead pamphlet
for all transactions (not simply sales of homes built
before 1978) or use similar disclosure
documentation for the potential presence of contaminated
soils where area-wide soil
contamination is likely.
Support the
Washington Association of Realtors to create an education course for real
estate agents about area-wide soil contamination or to
incorporate relevant Task Force
findings and recommendations (such as those contained in
the Area-Wide Soil
Contamination Toolbox [Appendix K]) into realtors’
existing course materials.
Page 45 June 30, 2003 June 30, 2003
Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Report
Encourage
the Washington Association of Realtors to draft an article highlighting the
Task Force’s findings and recommendations, including
key elements of individual
protection measures, for the Washington Realtor.
Page 46 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force Report
10. Application of the Model Toxics Control Act
The Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task Force was
chartered, in part, to recommend alternatives
to traditional ways of addressing soil contaminated with
low-to-moderate levels of arsenic and
lead under MTCA. The Task Force debated MTCA and its
application to area-wide soil
contamination extensively, and over the course of
discussions raised many questions as to how
the Task Force’s recommendations could be reconciled
with the MTCA statute and Ecology’s
current MTCA regulations and policies. In an effort to
find agreement, the Task Force identified
a number of objectives to guide the MTCA discussions.
The group then agreed to address the
objectives collectively; that is, to accept and attempt
to meet all of them, even if as individuals
they did not value each objective equally. The
objectives the Task Force worked to meet are:
Areas
characterized as having area-wide soil contamination are neither “MTCA-free
zones” nor “MTCA-everywhere zones”; a viable
alternate approach is needed consistent
with the current MTCA statute;
Predictability/certainty
about what is expected of property owners where area-wide soil
contamination is present;
Predictability/certainty
about what Ecology will do where area-wide soil contamination is
present;
Minimal
financial impacts on innocent property owners affected by area-wide soil
contamination;
Minimal
adverse impacts on property transactions;
Providing a
streamlined way for property owners to get as much certainty about their
property’s status as they desire; and
Providing
incentives for property owners to implement Task Force recommendations.
The Task Force also identified a number of elements of
the current MTCA regulations and
policies, as well as other mechanisms, which might be
used to meet these objectives. These
elements are:
Zones or
regulatory definitions of area-wide soil contamination instead of
propertyspecific
listings;
Rulemaking
to revise the MTCA regulations and other administrative action to revise
MTCA policies;
Conditional
No Further Action letters or other “comfort” letters or documents from
Ecology;
Model
actions or standard protocols for protection measures and/or sampling;
Enforcement
forbearance policies;
Independent
cleanup models;
Self-certification
models;
Page 47 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Delivery of
services recommended by the Task Force, such as technical assistance and
sampling assistance (e.g., with an XRF machine); and
Real estate
disclosure and other market-based models to distribute information.
Recommendations
From their discussions of these objectives and elements,
the Task Force makes six
recommendations relative to MTCA.
Ecology
should provide as much predictability and certainty as possible in how MTCA
will be applied to properties affected by area-wide soil
contamination. In general, this
will mean using regulations instead of policies to
implement Task Force
recommendations on MTCA.
Avoid
listing individual properties affected by area-wide soil contamination and
instead
identify and describe area-wide soil contamination
zones.
Establish
in regulation a new enforcement forbearance policy available where property
owners choose to implement Task Force recommendations at
residential and commercial
properties within area-wide soil contamination zones. To
complement this policy,
establish a standard checklist that can be used to
document property status and the
applicability of enforcement forbearance. Announce the
new regulations and checklist
when area-wide soil contamination zones are first
described.
Where
property owners choose not to implement Task Force recommendations, they
would remain under the current MTCA system, which
includes a policy under which
Ecology in general forbears from taking enforcement
actions at residential properties.
Where
properties are sampled and concentrations of arsenic and lead are below cleanup
levels, provide a streamlined process to reflect that
properties are clean.
The
traditional MTCA approach remains available to property owners who want to use
it
to address area-wide soil contamination and to Ecology
where property is affected by
other than area-wide soil contamination.
Use Regulations to Provide Predictability
The Task Force believes that predictability and
certainty with respect to what is expected of
property owners and how Ecology will apply MTCA at
properties affected by area-wide soil
contamination are very important. In implementing Task
Force recommendations relative to
MTCA, Ecology should choose methods that provide the
most predictability and certainty
possible given the circumstances. In general, the Task
Force believes that this will be achieved
by Ecology using regulations rather than policies to
implement Task Force recommendations
relative to MTCA. Regulations provide a greater degree
of certainty than policies because they
cannot be changed as easily. In addition, the formal
administrative process associated with
enacting regulations will provide the benefit of
opportunities for public review and comment on
Ecology’s approaches to implementing Task Force
recommendations relative to MTCA and on
any subsequent modifications to these approaches that
Ecology might propose.
Page 48 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
Avoid Listing Individual Properties
Ecology should avoid individual property listings for
properties affected by area-wide soil
contamination. Instead, Ecology should use an area-wide
soil contamination zone approach.
The process of identifying area-wide soil contamination
zones could involve mapping areas
using community or regional boundary lines, shaded
geographic area designations, and/or
property category descriptions to locate areas likely to
have elevated levels of lead or arsenic, or
could involve using narrative descriptions (or
regulatory definitions) of area-wide soil
contamination. Given the differences in the types of
data available on area-wide soil
contamination, it might be appropriate to use different
approaches in different areas. For
example, where there have already been mapping efforts
to identify area-wide soil
contamination, such as the mapping efforts associated
with the Tacoma and Everett smelter
plumes, maps may be the most appropriate way to identify
area-wide soil contamination zones.
Where less mapping has been undertaken, or where it is
more difficult to map potentially
affected areas, such as in historical apple and pear
growing areas, a narrative description or
regulatory definition of area-wide soil contamination,
potentially based on the Task Force
property evaluation flowchart, may be most appropriate.
The Task Force reiterates that one of the key elements
of responding to area-wide soil
contamination is to give individuals the information and
technical and financial support they
need to understand the potential risks associated with
area-wide soil contamination and take
steps to address it consistent with their own
lifestyles, property uses, and values. Consistent with
this approach, the Task Force recommends that the
Agencies’ efforts to conduct broad-based
education and awareness-building activities and to
support individuals who choose to take action
to address the potential for elevated levels of arsenic
and lead in soil at their properties be
focused within area-wide soil contamination zones. These
activities are discussed in detail
earlier in this report and include:
Targeted
outreach and informational materials for parents, educators, and others who care
for children; for home gardeners; and for adults who
have frequent contact with soil
because of their work (e.g., construction and
underground utility workers).
Support for
qualitative evaluations and, where appropriate, support for soil testing to help
individuals make decisions about when and how to protect
people from exposure to
arsenic and lead in soil.
Support for
implementation of individual protection measures, such as frequently
washing hands with soap and water and removing soil from
home-grown fruits and
vegetables, to minimize the potential for ingestion or
inhalation of contaminated soil.
Assistance
with identification and implementation of additional protection measures,
such as covering bare soil, particularly in areas where
children routinely play.
The Task Force emphasizes that regardless of the method
used to identify and describe area-wide
soil contamination zones, care should be taken in
identifying and describing area-wide soil
contamination zones to avoid misinterpretation of the
zones and other unintended consequences.
For example, if maps are used, Ecology should make clear
that because of the variability in the
distribution of area-wide soil contamination, zones will
not precisely distinguish contaminated
Page 49 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
from uncontaminated areas. Many properties within mapped
zones may, if sampled, be shown to
have concentrations of arsenic and lead that are below
MTCA cleanup levels.
Enforcement Forbearance
Within area-wide soil contamination zones, property
owners who choose to take actions
consistent with Task Force recommendations should
receive the benefits of enforcement
forbearance specific to area-wide soil contamination.
Enforcement forbearance should be
established in regulation rather than merely in a policy
document, and it should make clear that
Ecology will, in the exercise of its enforcement
discretion, generally not pursue enforcement
actions against landowners and tenants who maintain
their property in a way that is consistent
with the Task Force recommendations. As precedent,
Ecology should consider the current
residential forbearance policy and the former “plume
policy” (now codified in the MTCA
statute), which described Ecology’s enforcement
discretion relative to owners of properties
affected by contaminated ground water from other
sources.
To assist property owners in obtaining the benefits of
enforcement forbearance, Ecology should
create a checklist that property owners can use to track
their implementation of Task Force
recommendations. This checklist should be based on the
Task Force’s qualitative property
evaluation checklist, and should list the Task Force
recommendations by property type. The
Task Force believes that use of these checklists will
complement existing real estate disclosure
requirements and, over time, may prompt market action to
encourage property owners to
maintain their properties in ways that are consistent
with Task Force recommendations. To
facilitate this market action, and to encourage buyers
and sellers to rely on completed checklists,
Ecology should require that landowners who choose to use
the checklist complete it truthfully
and accurately.
The Task Force does not recommend that property owners
be required to submit completed
checklists to Ecology or any other agency. As with the
implementation of the Task Force
recommendations at specific properties in general, use
of the checklist should remain strictly
voluntary on the part of the property owner. Both the
new enforcement forbearance rule and the
checklist should be made available electronically and
should be incorporated into the broadbased
education and awareness-building activities described
earlier in this report. In particular,
education and outreach should target financial
institutions and real estate professionals who may
encounter these documents during property transactions.
The Task Force emphasizes that to
reduce the potential for unintended, adverse reactions
to identifying and describing area-wide
soil contamination zones, the new enforcement
forbearance policy and checklist should be made
available and announced when zones are first described.
It is critical to provide property owners
who may be affected by area-wide soil contamination with
information about effective, practical,
and affordable steps they can take (i.e., solutions) and
about what to expect from Ecology when
they receive information describing the area-wide soil
contamination problem.
Property Owners Who Choose Not to Implement Task Force
Recommendations
Property owners who choose not to implement Task Force
recommendations will continue to be
covered by the current MTCA regulations and existing
Ecology policies and practices related to
enforcement forbearance, such as current policies
describing Ecology’s intention to, in general,
forbear from taking enforcement action against
residential homeowners and, in certain
Page 50 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
circumstances, other property owners. The Task Force
notes that many of its recommendations
are consistent with the types of practices already
followed by many property owners. This is
particularly the case for commercial properties, where
the Task Force recommends maintaining
good soil cover through buildings, parking lots, and
other structures. The Task Force expects
that most commercial property owners are already taking
actions consistent with Task Force
recommendations and, therefore, will likely be covered
by the additional enforcement
forbearance recommended in this report.
Streamlined System to Reflect Where Properties are Clean
Ecology should create a streamlined system to recognize
property owners who choose to sample
their properties and discover that concentrations of
arsenic and lead in soil are below MTCA
cleanup levels. It is recommended that this system be
made available electronically and through
other means. Guidance on sampling is included in the
toolbox of materials recommended by the
Task Force.
Traditional MTCA Process Remains Available
Finally, the Task Force recognizes that there will be
some circumstances in which the traditional
MTCA approach is appropriate, either because a property
owner wants to use the traditional
MTCA process or because Ecology determines that
site-specific conditions warrant use of the
traditional MTCA process. These situations may include:
Properties
where contaminants other than arsenic and lead are found.
Properties
where there is ground water contamination.
Properties
where arsenic or lead are found at high levels.
Properties
where the owner has implemented what would traditionally be considered a
final remedy under MTCA and therefore desires a
settlement or other traditional MTCA
liability assurance.
Ecology should monitor, in an informal way,
circumstances within area-wide soil contamination
zones where the traditional MTCA approach is used. This
information should be used to refine
application of MTCA within area-wide soil contamination
zones over time. For example,
Ecology might consider establishing a model remedy under
MTCA if owners of commercial
properties are routinely adding institutional controls
to implementation of the Task Force
recommendations, thereby creating a remedy that would
likely be considered a final remedy
under MTCA that deserves formal recognition.
Page 51 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
11. Recommendations for Additional Information Needed
Monitoring of Arsenic and Lead Exposure
To develop recommendations for responding to area-wide
soil contamination, the Task Force
had repeated discussions about the implications that
elevated levels of arsenic and lead in soil
may have for the health of Washington State residents.
Based on these discussions, the Task
Force understands there is only limited information
available on the actual health of Washington
residents who, because of where they live, work, or go
to school, may be exposed to elevated
levels of arsenic and lead in soil. The Task Force is
concerned about this lack of health data for
Washington residents, particularly with respect to
children, who may be at greatest risk.
The Task Force encourages the Washington Department of
Health, in partnership with other
agencies as appropriate, to expand its use of blood-lead
testing, fluoroscopy, or any other
appropriate techniques to gather additional information
on the health of Washington residents,
particularly children, who may be exposed to arsenic and
lead. The Task Force believes it is
important for the Department of Health to look at both
arsenic and lead, even though the test
methods for arsenic have limitations. Furthermore, any
studies should not be directed only at
voluntary subpopulations, but should be representative
of all Washington residents who might be
exposed to lead or arsenic in the soil. Appropriate use
of random testing and finding ways to
eliminate or minimize the effects of confounding
factors, such as smoking and home remedies,
are also needed to give a better picture of how the
health of Washington residents might be
affected by lead and arsenic in the soil.
The Task Force felt so strongly that additional
information on the health of Washington residents
who may be exposed to elevated levels of arsenic and
lead in soil is needed that it offered this
recommendation to the Department of Health approximately
mid-way through the Task Force
process. The Task Force acknowledges and appreciates the
Department of Health’s concern
about the practicality of implementing this
recommendation and about the need to apply the
precautionary principle to potentially exposed
populations. Nonetheless, the Task Force
continues to feel strongly that gathering additional
information on the health of Washington
residents is important to better understand the effects
of area-wide soil contamination and
thereby focus response actions over time.
Research on Roadside Lead Contamination
According to the study prepared by the contractor
project team to support Task Force
deliberations, little is known about the distribution of
contamination from combustion of leaded
gasoline in Washington or the concentrations of lead
that are likely to be present in roadside
soils. Analogous circumstances in other states and
countries suggest that roadside lead
contamination may be extensive and may occur in many
areas routinely used by people, such as
adjacent to driveways and residential streets. The Task
Force recommends that the Agencies
conduct further research to characterize the location
and extent of elevated levels of lead in soil
from past use of leaded gasoline in Washington. Research
should be focused in areas where
Page 52 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
there is the greatest potential for exposure of children
and where concentrations are likely to be
the greatest, such as areas adjacent to older, more
heavily used roads. If the results of this
research warrant such action, the Agencies should extend
implementation of the Task Force’s
recommendations to areas that are most likely to be
affected by combustion of leaded gasoline.
Research on Ecological Risks
There is a significant body of scientific information
demonstrating that high levels of arsenic and
lead in soils can adversely affect plants and animals.
However, the ecological risks associated
with the range of concentrations associated with
area-wide soil contamination are less well
understood. In general, low-to-moderate arsenic and lead
soil contamination has been found to
adversely impact several plant species in laboratory and
field studies. At the same time, other
field studies have documented healthy and thriving plant
communities in areas with soil arsenic
and lead concentrations of similar magnitudes.
Ecological receptors such as plants and animals
exhibit differing sensitivities and tolerances to soil
arsenic and lead, which may over long
periods of time effect some changes in the distribution
and thriftiness of the ecological
community relative to an uncontaminated site.
Assessments of and responses to ecological risks are
further complicated by site-specific
circumstances. In general, ecological concerns at
developed commercial and residential
properties do not trigger response actions beyond those
actions that would be necessary to
protect human health. Cleanups of larger properties,
such as open land, however, raise more
complicated concerns. The Task Force recommendations for
response actions for open land not
proposed for development focus on reducing the potential
for human exposure to arsenic and
lead in soil through education and awareness-building,
but do not address protection of
ecological receptors. Given the lack of definitive
evidence of substantive impacts on ecological
systems and the complexity of these issues, the Task
Force recommends that Ecology conduct or
support studies that evaluate the potential ecological
impacts associated with low- to moderatelevel
arsenic and lead soil contamination. The results of
these studies might suggest
circumstances where measures beyond those recommended by
the Task Force to limit human
exposure are needed to protect plants and animals.
Page 53 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
12. Costs and Funding Recommendations
The Task Force was asked by the Agencies to recommend
possible funding sources for agency
activities to address area-wide soil contamination. A
central theme in these discussions was that
the State government, and in particular the Agencies,
should provide financial assistance for
local government efforts to address area-wide soil
contamination to avoid establishing unfunded
mandates. Moreover, individual residents, childcare
providers, and others who choose to take
actions to address area-wide soil contamination should
not bear the full burden of the costs to
conduct property evaluations, implement individual
protection measures, maintain good soil
cover, and implement any other appropriate protection
measures. The Task Force recognizes
that State agencies do not have limitless resources and
that there are competing demands for the
use of available resources. This creates a need to
target available resources effectively and seek
additional funding from a broad array of potential
sources.
To provide information for the Task Force’s
deliberations on possible funding sources and
funding strategies, the project support contractor
developed rough estimates of the costs to
implement the Task Force’s recommendations and
researched potential funding sources for those
recommendations. Cost estimates are included in Appendix
L. Note that the Task Force did not
attempt to align funding sources with cost estimates for
individual activities. Although the Task
Force recommends that the Agencies provide financial
support to individuals who choose to take
action to address area-wide soil contamination, it also
recognizes that in many cases the costs of
responding to area-wide soil contamination will be borne
by residents, not government agencies.
This recognition was one of the reasons the Task Force
focused on identifying responses to areawide
soil contamination that are practical and affordable, as
well as effective.
Recommendations
In developing funding recommendations, the Task Force
was motivated by several guiding
principles:
Wherever
possible, individuals and institutions should minimize costs by integrating
responses to area-wide soil contamination into existing
processes and activities to
leverage resources.
State and
local government agencies should provide information, technical assistance,
financial support, and other incentives to residents and
property owners to evaluate the
potential for exposure to arsenic and lead in soil and
to take effective, practical, and
affordable steps to minimize exposure.
State and
Federal agencies should provide local agencies with the financial resources
needed to implement any new obligations, in order to
avoid establishing unfunded
mandates.
Resources
to address area-wide soil contamination should be fairly allocated across the
state.
Page 54 June 30, 2003 Area-Wide Soil Contamination Task
Force Report
The Task Force recognizes that MTCA is based on the
“polluter pays” model for financing
cleanup of contamination, and that Ecology has a
statutory obligation to seek to recover its costs
in administering the MTCA program from potentially
liable parties. The Task Force believes
that Ecology should discharge its legal duties wherever
possible; at the same time, the Task
Force recognizes that Ecology may face unusual
challenges in trying to recover its costs for
addressing area-wide soil contamination, and that, in
some instances, it may not be feasible to
recover some or all costs. Because of these potentially
difficult circumstances, the Task Force
also recommends that Ecology seek funding from a broad
array of Federal, State, and private
sources:
Where
possible, the Agencies should use the State and Local Toxics Accounts to
implement the Task Force recommendations. These
accounts, which were established
under MTCA, receive revenue primarily from taxes on
hazardous substances. The State
Toxics Account supports State agency efforts, including
the hazardous sites cleanup
program, while the Local Toxics Account provides funding
to local governments and
non-profit organizations for public education and
outreach, individual property
evaluations, cleanup actions, and other activities.
The
Agencies should work with OSPI to continue its efforts to identify and address
contamination during new school construction and to
explore opportunities to use school
construction funds to address area-wide soil
contamination. The Task Force also
encourages the Agencies to look for other opportunities
to use existing funding programs
to support local efforts to implement the Task Force
recommendations.
The
Agencies should seek supplementary funding from private foundations, Federal
grant
programs, and other Federal, State, and private sources.
Examples of potential funding
sources include Federal grant programs, such as EPA
Environmental Education Grants
and the HUD Community Development Block Grants, and
grants from private sources
such as the Bullitt Foundation and the DuPont
Lead-Safe…for Kids’ Sake grant program.
(See Appendix M for a more complete summary of
applicable grant programs and other
potential funding sources.) Many of these grant programs
are available to local
jurisdictions, non-profit organizations, and other
entities.
The Task
Force recognizes that it will be difficult to obtain significant amounts of
money
from many of these sources, including the competitive
and formula-based grant
programs. Thus, it may also be necessary for the
Agencies to seek additional funding
directly from the Federal government and the State
legislature.
Page 55 June 30, 2003