United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5204G)
EPA 540-K-96/004
June 1996
Focus On Cleanup Costs
The Buck Stops Here
Polluters are Paying for Most
Hazardous Waste Cleanups
Cleaning up hazardous waste
is Superfund's highest priority.
And the public's demand that
polluters pay for cleanup also
makes it critical that EPA find
those who are responsible. At
more and more Superfund sites,
polluters are "stepping up to the
plate"to clean contaminated air,
soil, groundwater, and surface
water. This cooperation, coupl-
ed with EPA's enforcement
activity, is increasing the number
of polluters involved in cleanup
activities. In fact, in 1995,
those responsible for contam-
ination performed 75% of new
Superfund cleanups and, since
1980, have committed to pay
more than $11 billion toward
these cleanups (see graph).
When those responsible for
hazardous waste contamination
cannot be found or are unable to
pay, EPA uses money from the
Trust Fund, known as the
Superfund, to clean up the worst
of these sites. The Trust Fund is
financed mostly through a
special tax on the petroleum and
chemical industries, and from
environmental taxes collected
from industries whose
production has an impact on the
environment. In emergency
situations where the public is
at immediate risk from the
contamination, EPA will use the
Trust Fund to pay for initial
cleanups and look for and
negotiate with the polluters later.
Whenever the Trust Fund is
used, EPA attempts to recover
the cost of cleanup by taking
legal actions, if necessary,
against those responsible.
Regardless of who is res-
ponsible for contaminating the
environment and who pays for
the cleanup in the long run,
reducing the threat to the public
and the environment is EPA's
first and foremost concern.
Did You
Know...?
In 1995 alone, over $670
million was spent cleaning
up hazardous waste.
In 1995, polluters performed
75% of new Superfund
cleanups.
78% of the Superfund Trust
Fund has come from chemi-
cal, petroleum, and corpo-
rate taxes.
62% of the Trust Fund has
been spent on site cleanup
response.
700,000 tons of hazardous
waste are produced in
America every day.
Those Responsible for Contamination
Have Committed to Pay Over $ 11 Billion
From 1980 to 1995
•June 1996-
-------
A Nation Dealing With Hazardous Waste
What is the Problem...
Even though we know more about reducing and
controlling hazardous waste today than we did in the
past, America still produces 700,000 tons of hazard-
ous waste every day. That adds up to 25 0 million tons
Municipal
Landfills
Manufacturing
X
A/0/7-'
manufacturing
Types ofPRPs at Superfund Sites
...and How Do We
Pay for Cleanup?
Superfund requires those
responsible for hazardous
waste sites to pay for or per-
form the cleanup. After a site
is discovered and any imme-
diate dangers are taken care
of, EPA begins to search for
the PRPs. Some of the search
techniques EPA uses are re-
viewing site files, looking for
names on drums or other
materials on site, and inter-
viewing former employees or
neighbors of the site. Once
PRPs are located, EPA sends
them notice letters. A notice
letter summarizes informa-
tion EPA has used to identify
the PRPs and encourages
them to work with EPA to
agree on cleanup responsi-
bility for the site.
PRPs may be responsible
for the entire cost of the
cleanup; therefore, negotiat-
ing a fair cleanup plan with
EPA early will save them time
per year—enough to fill the
Superdome in New Orleans
1,500 times.
The waste comes from
many sources. Most of it is
produced by manufacturers
including makers of chemi-
cals, petroleum, metal, tex-
tiles, and electric equipment,
as well as businesses that treat
wood, produce food and pa-
per, and undertake construc-
tion. Other sources are non-
manufacturing, such as gov-
ernments, the military, hospi-
tals, and universities. Munici-
pal landfills, a combination of
relatively harmless household
waste and some industrial
waste, also are a part of the
hazardous waste problem.
Certain hazardous wastes are
more harmful than others.
Some of these wastes have not
been safely handled and have
polluted the environment.
...Who is Responsible...
Today we have the technol-
ogy and the laws to control
hazardous waste production and
disposal. Butyesterday'swaste
sites still exist. Figuring out
who is responsible for cleanup is
a big job.
The public has demanded
that those who produced and
handled the waste clean it up.
At Superfund sites, EPA tries
to identify those likely to be
responsible for causing or con-
tributing to the hazardous waste
contamination. They are called
"potentially responsible par-
ties," or PRPs. Many of these
parties did not break existing
laws when they disposed of
their hazardous wastes. How-
ever, under today's tougher
environmental laws, they are
considered responsible if they
caused the waste or even car-
ried waste to a site. The PRPs
for a Superfund site can in-
clude large or small compa-
nies, past or present owners,
individuals, and even Federal
agencies. Often a site, such as
a landfill, will have hundreds
of PRPs because many differ-
ent individuals and groups
have stored or sent waste there.
and money in the long run. If the PRPs do not cooperate, EPA can
either get a court order requiring them to perform the cleanup or
conduct the cleanup itself using the Trust Fund. If EPA conducts
the cleanup, the Agency can then recover in court up to three times
the amount of the cost of cleanup plus penalties. The Trust Fund
also pays for cleanup if PRPs cannot be found or if they are unable
or unwilling to pay.
Sharing in Federal cleanup costs are the states where sites are
located. States must contribute at least 10% of these cleanup costs
and are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the sites.
When EPA does negotiate a cleanup plan with the PRPs, site
work begins under EPA supervision. This agreement with PRPs
enables the parties involved to develop a fair cleanup plan and
quickly and efficiently make sites safe again for people and the
environment. Q
•June 1996-
-------
Superfund's Trust Fund
Aiming Dollars at Cleanups
People sometimes imagine
expensive lawyers, endless
courtroom battles, and lawsuits
when Superfund is discussed.
In fact, EPA spends 62% of the
Trust Fund on actual site
cleanup. Enforcement activi-
ties, such as suing potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) to
recover cleanup costs and
negotiating court orders, use
only 15%. Since 1987,
Superfund has collected $1.6
billion through cost recovery
efforts.
In most cases, Trust Fund
money is used to clean up sites
where there is very little hope
of either finding those respon-
sible, or getting them to pay
for or conduct the cleanup. For
example, if a site or an area of
contamination is discovered
but the polluting company has
gone bankrupt, the Trust Fund
takes over. The Trust Fund is
authorized by Congress as part
of the Superfund law, and the
money pays for everything re-
lated to cleanup from bulldoz-
ers to file folders.
How has the Trust Fund
money been spent? The illustra-
tion below shows that most of
Superfund's 1995 budget was
spent on site cleanup response.
This includes testing and sam-
pling, relocating affected people
or providing them with alternate
water supplies, running com-
munity outreach programs, as
well as managing and conduct-
ing site cleanups. Some of the
Trust Fund dollars also were
used to research and develop
new cleanup technologies, and
were distributed to other EPA
offices and Federal agencies.
For example, every year the
Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry receives
Trust Fund money to perform
critical health studies at
Superfund sites. The remain-
ing 9% of the Trust Fund was
used to manage Superfund pro-
gram activities. Q
CWifiv Federal
Enforcement
How Superfund $$ Were Spent (1995)
What About the Little Guy?
EPA considers the amount and
harmfulness of waste contributed
or the level of involvement at a
site when negotiating a cleanup
plan with potentially responsible
parties (PRPs). Some may have
only contributed a small amount
of hazardous waste. Others may
have contributed a large amount,
but it might not have been very
harmful. De minimis, a Latin
term meaning "at the least," de-
scribes these two types of PRPs
in the Superfund program. For
example, a de minimis party might
be aneighborhood dry cleanerthat
sent a small amount of hazardous
waste to a landfill. For parties
contributing an even smaller
amount of waste than de minimis
parties, EPA uses the term de
micromis.
EPA works closely with both
de minimis wA de micromis PRPs
when negotiating for the cleanup
of a site. This allows small haz-
ardous waste contributors to agree
to their fair share of cleanup costs
and complete the negotiation pro-
cess. These settlements also
protect small hazardous waste
contributors from future legal
actions brought by EPA or by
other PRPs. This is an important
benefit, because parties some-
times sue each other for money
in an effort to lower their cleanup
costs. De minimis and de
micromis settlements save time
and money for all parties in-
volved and provide settlors with
a high level of confidence that
they have met their responsibili-
ties for a clean site.
a
•June 1996-
-------
Working Together at Bypass 601
EPA and Polluters Launch a
Successful Joint Cleanup Effort
CONCORD, NORTH CARO-
LINA—At first glance, the
Bypass 601 Groundwater
Contamination Superfund site
in Concord, North Carolina
seemed like a cleanup nightmare
for EPA—4,000 possible
polluters being investigated for
serious lead contamination of
the site's soil and groundwater.
However, thanks to a
cooperative effort between EPA
and the potentially responsible
a
local area (including private
residences and small businesses).
Harmful contaminants such as
lead and sulfuric acid leaked into
the soil and groundwater. EPA
studies revealedthat site cleanup
would require solidification and
stabilization of lead-contam-
inated soils, and pumping and
treating of the contaminated
groundwater—carrying an
estimated $40 million price tag.
EPA identified the main
(defined as those who had sent
less than atruckload of batteries
or 40,000 Ibs to the site). Many
polluters could not be found.
Despite the variety and
number of PRPs at Bypass 601,
EPA' s goal was to treat each one
as fairly as possible. Highlights
of EPA's cleanup settlement
included cleanup agreements
with 80 de minimis PRPs,
protection for all de micromis
and de minimis parties from
j.,.^,.^ Vi ^ o,, ^ ^i ~ • being sued by other
settlement plan Working together, EPA and the PRPs, and allocation of
emerged that will potentially responsible parties $10 million from the
allow cleanup ofthe arrived at a cost-effective way to Trust Fund to cover
site to move forward. cleanup forward... Polluters who were not
The plan calls for ^^^^^
cleanup to be funded
by the polluters—based on the
amount of hazardous waste they
contributed to the site—as well
asbythe TrustFund, forthe costs
that cannot be covered by the
polluters.
For a number of years,
batteries were disposed of at
the Martin Scrap Recycling
(MSR) facility located on
Bypass 601. Once the lead
plates were removed for scrap,
the leftover casings were buried
in the ground at the facility, and
at ten other source areas in the
polluter at the site as the owner
and operator ofthe MSRfacility.
However, the list of PRPs
included many more polluters.
Under Superfund law, people
who had sent or transported
batteries to the site were liable
for cleanup. This raised the
number of PRPs to more than
4,000. EPA classified 2,400 of
them as de micromis parties (at
this site, defined as those parties
who had sent fewer than 10 lead
batteries or less than 200 Ibs)
and another 115 as de minimis
found or could not pay
for cleanup. EPA also
encouraged other largerpolluters
to join a steering committee,
which then negotiated a separate
cleanup agreement with the
Agency. EPA will supervise the
cleanup activities. The
settlement also means EPA will
get back 100% ofthe money it
had already spent at the site.
Working together, EPA and
the PRPs arrived at a cost-
effective way to move cleanup
forward at the Bypass 601
Groundwater Contamination
site.
Printed on
recycled paper
For More Information on the Superfund Program.
EPA Superfund Hotline
(800) 424-9346 or TDD: (800) 553-7672
Internet: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/
Information Resources Center
(202) 260-5922, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460;
Internet: www.epa.gov/epapages/natlibra/hqirc/services.htm
•June 1996-
------- |