EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency
Response
5204G
ERA 540-R-OD-D07
OSWER Directive 9200.5-16
December 11, 2000
www.epa.gov/superfund
20 YEARS
OF PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
-------
-------
'• 2O YEARS OF PROTECTING
"HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
On December 11, 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).
This important legislation was enacted to fill a major gap in environmental pro-
tection. The events at Love Canal, New York, and other sites around the country
had shown that wastes buried long ago — and mostly forgotten - could prove to
be a serious threat to the community.
The Superfund legislation provided strong Federal authorities to address this prob-
lem, but it was up to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create
an effective Superfund program. At first, EPA faced a series of unknowns. There
was a lack of data about specific sites and the health effects of chemicals. Tech-
nologies had to be created and a regulatory structure needed to be put in pkce.
Over time, a strong and effective program evolved - the result of ongoing reform
and revitalization.
Today, EPA is working continuously to: increase community participation and
public/private partnerships; enhance cleanup effectiveness and consistency in
program implementation; streamline the enforcement process and optimize fair-
ness; and encourage economic redevelopment. According to a report published
in June 2000 by the National Academy of Public Administrators, the refonns
have "successfully addressed the key challenges facing Superfund" and made the
program faster, faker, and more efficient
Working together with States, Tribes, communities, local governments, and many
other stakeholders, Superfund has produced impressive results. On its 20* anni-
versary, Superfund can point to many accomplishments, including:
• Over 6,400 actions to immediately reduce threats to public health and the
envkonment.
• 757 Superfund sites with all cleanup construction completed.
• Cleanup work done by responsible parties at over 70 percent of the sites
that EPA has placed on its list of national priorities.
• Private parties settlements at a value of over $18 billion.
While Superfund's accomplishments are impressive, challenges remain. Aban-
doned waste sites are still being discovered. EPA continues to work with its
partners to address immediate, or long-term, dangers - and ensure that the rem-
edies selected remain effective for years to come. EPA also serves as a catalyst to
promote redevelopment in areas that were once considered "lost" because of
contamination.
At the start of its thkd decade, a strong Superfund program will continue to meet
the challenge of protecting human health and the envkonment from the dangers
of hazardous -waste.
-------
-------
Superfimd: 20 Tears of Protecting Humnn Health and the Environment
CONTINUING THE PROMISE OF EARTH DAY
MAJOR EVENTS BEFORE EARTH DAY
THAT RAISED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS
1962
Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, alerts the general public to the hidden dangers associated with
pesticide use. Silent Spring becomes a cornerstone of the environmental movement, highlighting the
causal relationship between human action and adverse changes to human health and the environment.
1968
Apollo 8 transmits the first images of the Earth as a luminous blue sphere in the otherwise dark void of
outer space. The images of our planet from the Apollo moon missions give rise to feelings that our Earth's
environment is something fragile and precious that must be protected - providing inspiration to a nascent
environmental movement.
1969
An explosion on an oil platform six miles off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, spills 200,000 gallons of
crude oil - creating an 800-mile oil slick that mars 35 miles of the California coast. Incoming tides wash the
corpses of dead seals and dolphins on shore; nearly 3,700 birds are estimated to have died.
In Cleveland, Ohio, the Cuyahoga River catches fire and burns due to chemical contamination. This event
galvanizes growing public concerns about the threats of unregulated toxic chemical use and disposal.
1970
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is signed into law by President Richard Nixon on
January 1,1970. Heralded as the Magna Carta of the country's environmental movement, NEPA established
a framework for the Federal government to assess the environmental effects of its major decisions.
Membership in the Sierra Club grows from 15,000 in 1960 to 113,000 in 1970 - an increase of more than
700 percent. The National Audubon Society also sees its membership grow significantly during the decade
- from 32,000 in 1960 to 148,000 in 1970.
Earth Day (April 22,1970)—Foryears, environmental contamina-
tion was largely seen as the inevitable (and accepted) consequence
of economic progress. As cities grew and industries flourished,
toxic emissions polluted the air and wastes were dumped into
"waterways or buried in the ground.
In the 1960s, Americans grew increasingly concerned about squan-
deringwhat once seemed like the country's Hmidess resources. The
word "environment" entered the American political vocabulary as
a larger concept beyond simply preserving wilderness areas or
regulating the most obvious forms of pollution. Widespread
media coverage of disasters like the Santa Barbara oil spill and
the Cuyahoga River fire gave rise to a popular concern that the
environment was threatened by human activities and in need of
protection. Nothing better demonstrated this growing wave of
public awareness than the tremendous national response to the
first Earth Day.
When Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-Wisconsin) called for a na-
tionwide "Environmental Teach-in," he was thinking mainly of
raising environmental consciousness on the nation's college cam-
puses. But news of the idea set off what Nelson kter called "a
Earth as seen by the Apollo astronauts
-------
Sitperfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
CONTINUING THE PROMISE OF EARTH DAY
"It worked because of the spontaneous, enthusiastic
response at the grassroots. Nothing like it had ever
haffenedbefoK. \VhHeonrorgfinizingoncollegecam-
]3ti$<$iuasveiyivelldone,tbet}mtsandsofeventsinaur
schoobandottrconmumitiesivewself-genemtedatthe
hcallcvd... They simply organized themselves. That
teas the remarkable thing that became Earth Day."
Senator Gaytord Nelson
Founder of the First Earth Day
at the 25th Celebration
Evacuation of
kids urged
B»iffT*HMl^™«ttB'':'!!.'. i'iit I •^EL"B'"ure?ry«™''at!'»'!^^
iysSSSS^/ho will help
_. _JP«T jtirTiL^ The slate says. "Send your children sor
0 ^jX-^^^'JiW^T^^jg^^^,^^
/Council declares city
disaster area '
asks federal help J(
truly astonishing grassroots explosion." More than 20 million
people from all parts of the country participated in the first Earth
Day. Events "were held in 10,000 schools, 2,000 colleges, and
over 1,000 communities.
New Protections and Newly Discovered Threats
Also remarkable is what happened in the years following Earth
Day. President Richard Nixon established the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) eight months later. Congress passed
a series of laws that regulated the introduction of pollutants into
the nation's air and waterways, controlled the production of pes-
ticides and other toxic substances, and required "cradle-to-grave"
tracking of hazardous waste.
The 1970s have been called the "golden age" of environmen-
talism in the United States, but it was also a time when the na-
ztion first became aware of a serious threat to human health
and the environment.
Love Canal, New York (August 7,1978)—President Jimmy Carter
declares a State of Emergency, freeing Federal funds to move
residents from this Niagara Falls community built over and
around a former landfill. In the 1940s and 1950s, the landfill
had been a dumping ground for tons of chemical wastes, but
the landfill had been closed and covered in 1953. Through the
1960s, and increasingly in the 1970s, residents reported odors and
incidents of chemical residues seeping into their basements and
kwns. Later studies indicated that chemicals from the landfill had
risen up along with the water table to contaminate surrounding
land, as well as sewers, creeks, and the Niagara River. This con-
tamination coincided with increased local cases of miscarriages,
birth defects, respiratory ailments, and cancer. For example, a
survey conducted by the Love Canal Homeowners Association
found that 56% of the children born from 1974-1978 had a
birth defect.
An Unexpected By-product of the Industrial Age
Love Canal graphically presented the nation with a problem that
had been largely ignored for a number of decades.
By the middle of the 20th century, U.S. industry and American
consumers had come to expect products and processes that re-
quired the manufacturing of complex chemicals. A booming
economy produced an ever-expanding selection of synthetic fi-
bers, plastics, fuels, fertilizers, drugs, and pesticides.
-------
Super fund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
CONTINUING THE PROMISE OF EARTH DAY
Industry concentrated on the production of these goods - not
on developing technologies to safely dispose of the wastes. Too
often, chemical residues were simply burned into the air or dis-
charged into the oceans, waterways, or municipal sewers. The
foul air and water that resulted from these practices helped to
inspire the first Earth Day - and the worst excesses were ad-
dressed by early environmental legislation. Laws like the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act
regulated the introduction of new pollutants into the nation's air
and water.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the tried and
true method of disposing waste was simply to hide it away, usu-
ally by burying it in the ground. This same solution was applied
in the 20th century. However, now the chemicals had become
more complex and the by-products much more dangerous and
persistent. Following the old strategy of "out of sight-out of
mind," these new types of hazardous -wastes were pumped into
drums or tank cars — and then dumped into unused corners of
plants, trenches, or landfills. This is what occurred at Love Canal
- beginning a chain of events that brought the dangers of haz-
ardous waste sites into national prominence.
Tragic Consequences at Love Canal
At Love Canal, over 21,000 tons of chemical wastes were depos-
ited in a landfill. The landfill dosed in 1952, and was then cov-
ered over the next year. Over time, a community grew around
the abandoned landfill. Under the old scenario of "out of sight-
out of mind," that should have been the end of the story.
However, more than two decades later, increasing numbers of Love
Canal residents began complaining of health problems, including
chronic headaches, respiratory discomforts, and skin ailments.
Residents also noticed high incidents of cancer and deafness. The
State of New York investigated and found high levels of chemical
contaminants in the soil and air - with a high incidence of birth
defects and miscarriages in the immediate area around the Love
Canal landfill. President Jimmy Carter declared a State of Emer-
gency in 1978, and Federal funds were used to permanently relo-
cate 239 families in the first two rows of houses that encircled
the landfill area.
But the -tragedy did not end. A New York State investigation
found "extensive migration of potentially toxic materials out-
side the immediate canal area." In 1979,300 additional families
in a 10-block area around the site were relocated because of
health problems from chemical exposure. In 1980, EPA an-
nounced the results of blood tests that showed chromosome
damage in Love Canal residents. Residents were told that this
Love Canal resident protests toxic dangers
-------
Superfimd: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
CONTINUING THE PROMISE OF EARTH DAY
could mean an increased risk of cancer, reproductive problems,
and genetic damage. Later that year, President Carter issued a
second State of Emergency - providing funding for the perma-
nent relocation of all 900 residents of the Love Canal area.
Evacuation at Love Canal
re
tf*. „*.,»* _.
Environmental aivareness on Earth Day
Early Attempts to Deal with Toxic Chemicals
Six years after Earth Day, Congress acted to address the threat
from these new chemicals and their introduction into the envi-
ronment. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) estab-
lished methods for identifying chemicals that could pose risks
to humans, plants, and animals - and placed controls on their
manufacture, distribution, use, and disposal. The Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provided a framework for
ensuring the safe disposal of wastes that threaten human health
or the environment because they are flammable, explosive, cor-
rosive, or toxic. RCRA required that such "hazardous •wastes"
be tightly managed from generation to disposal.
TSCA and RCRA addressed the new threats posed by indus-
trial practices developed during the 20th century. Together, they
empowered EPA to establish a regulatory scheme to provide
protections from the introduction of dangerous chemicals and
chemical by-products into the environment.
But Love Canal exposed a gap in this new blanket of protection.
Toxic chemicals did not need to be newly introduced to provide
a threat to a community. Wastes that had been buried long ago -
and mostly forgotten - could suddenly prove to be dangerous.
A new threat to human health and the environment was discov-
ered in the decade after Earth Day. And new ways needed to be
developed to address this serious challenge.
4
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and, the Environment
THE BIRTH OF SUPERFUND
Toxic WASTE THREATS AROUND THE COUNTRY
BRIDGEPORT, NEW JERSEY (1977) -Sparks from a welder's torch ignite an accu-
mulation of chemicals, including benzene, toluene, and PCBs, at a waste storage facility. A
raging fire sends up a torrent of thick black smoke resembling a tornado. Six die and 35 are
hospitalized. One of the firemen reported: "Pipelines, storage tanks - the whole place seemed
like it was on fire. There were cylinders as big as a freight car flying through the air for a couple
of hundred yards.. .The cloud was like a mushroom, with drums popping all over the place,
a very black and high funnel, hundreds of feet into the sky."
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA (1978) - Erosion of the retaining dam for the Stringfellow
Waste Pits threatens an 8-million gallon torrent of waste material, including DDT, nickel,
lead, chloroform, and trichloroethylene. Heavy rains force the State to authorize a con-
trolled release of 800,000 gallons of waste water to prevent further waste pool overflow and
massive releases. Children and animals cavort in the discharge before it flows into the
Santa Ana River. One parent tells the Los Angeles Times, "One of my kids came home and
her boots fell apart after she played in tha,t stuff."
TOONE, TENNESSEE (I978-79) - Residents file a class action suit against a chemi-
cal company that disposed of pesticide wastes in a landfill. Six years after the landfill is closed,
the drinking water is found contaminated and the City of Toone is required to provide an
alternative water supply to residents living within a three-mile radius.
Love Canal grabbed the Nation's attention, but it was not alone.
In 1979, EPA estimated that there were thousands of inactive
and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites in the United States that
could pose a serious risk to public health.
Hazardous waste disposal sites were only one part of the problem.
Chemical spills posed another danger. Thomas C. Jorling, EPA's
top official for waste management, told a Senate committee in 1979:
Spills of hazardous substances can have serious environ-
mental and public health impacts similar to abandoned
hazardous "waste disposal sites. Environmental damage
resulting from such spills can result in massive fish kills,
destruction of wildlife, air pollution, and loss of live-
stock by contamination of drinking water. Spills have
also resulted in loss of life and posed direct threats to
human health from toxicity, fires, and explosions.
Oil pond at Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services site in
Newjersey
Need for New Legislation
On April 22,1980, the Nation celebrated the 10* anniversary of
Earth Day. Thousands took to the streets to reaffirm the country's
commitment to protecting the environment. But the celebration
was tempered by an event that took place the previous evening.
-------
Sttperfimd: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
THE BIRTH OF SUPERFUND
Abandoned chemical tvarelmise in Elizabeth, New Jersey
"For decades, ivebave been disposing of these chemi-
cals without adequate safeguards. We've paid very
little attention to tvhere these wastes have gone, in
pail because HP iveren 't aware, and in some cases out
ofignorance,andinsomeinstancesoutofsheercare-
lessness."
Douglas M. Costle
EPA Administrator
Elizabeth, New Jersey (April 21,1980)- An explosion in a
warehouse ignites a fire that bums 24,000 barrels of
chemicals, including illegally stored toxic wastes. The
fire bums for 10 hours - sending a thick black plume of
smoke and ash over a 15-square mile area and raising
fears of widespread chemical contamination. The site
is completely destroyed and there are reports of burn-
ing waste drums launching 200 feet through the air and
bursting into cascades of flashing light. Public schools
in Elizabeth, Linden, and Staten Island are ordered
dosed as State authorities urge residents to shut all doors
and windows and remain inside. A 72-hour ban on com-
mercial and sport fishing, covering a 40-mile radius, is
also imposed.
In an April 23 editorial, the New York Times commented that the
10* anniversary of Earth Day "got off to a poisonous start"
because of the fire in Elizabeth, New Jersey, but that "it, more
than any other Earth Day observance, focused attention on the
problem of getting rid of toxic wastes." The Times further com-
mented that "[fjhe dump in Elizabeth is one of those 'ticking
time bombs' that environmental officials keep warning us about"
and that the accident in New Jersey underscores "the need for
long-pending Federal legislation to provide a 'super-fund' for
cleaning up hazardous waste sites whose owners can't be found
or who shirk responsibility." The Times editorial ended by warn-
ing, "The Elizabeth site was one of the worst. It is by no means
one of a kind."
By 1980, the decades-old legacy of industrial waste was clearly
presenting the Nation with a major problem. EPA's Thomas C.
Jorling declared the Carter Administration's position that,
"Meleases of hazardous wastes from abandoned and inactive
disposal sites are perhaps the most serious environmental prob-
lem facing the Nation today." Campaigning for the Presidency,
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) called the disposal
of hazardous "waste "a public health nightmare of extraordinary
dimensions" causing millions of Americans to take "unwitting,
involuntary but potentially serious health risks every day, simply
because of where they live."
Although the problem was serious, in 1980, the country had
few means to address it. Individuals could sue in court for
injuries suffered from industrial wastes, but this was costly and
time-consuming - and awards were uncertain. More important,
any remedy was after-the-fact. The common kw did not provide
a means to prevent hazardous -waste injuries from happening in
the first place.
-------
Superfund: 20 Tenfs of Protecting Human Health and the. Environment
THE BERTH OF SUPERFUND
Some of the Federal legislation passed in the wake of the first
Earth Day helped to fill this gap - but only partially. RCRA
provided EPA with authority to sue owners of inactive hazard-
ous waste sites to prevent "an imminent and substantial danger
to human health or the environment." However, this required
EPA to identify a person or business in the position to stop a
spill from happening. Since many of the sites had been aban-
doned long ago, such an individual or business often could not
be identified. The Clean Water Act established a control pro-
gram for certain spills of oil and hazardous substances, but this
was limited to discharges into navigable waters. The Clean
Water Act did not cover spills of hazardous substances onto
soils — and only certain designated hazardous substances could
be regulated.
"People at Love Canal were driven from their homes.
In Pittston, PA, people lived for days with the fear of
breathing cyanide gas. In Youngsville, PA, PCB con-
taminants have infiltrated the soil about 100 yards from
that town's water supply. There are thousands of Love
Canals, Pittstons, and Youngsvilles all over America."
Senator John Heinz (R-Pennsylvania)
Congress Creates a "Superfund" to Deal with
Hazardous Wastes
The range of problems explored by Congress was addressed by
Senator Robert Stafford (R-Vermont) when the Environment and
Public Works Committee held its first hearing in 1979 on the
possible dangers posed by toxic waste sites:
If these hearings were to deal only with Love Canal or
Toone, Tennessee, we would be neglecting the radium
sites in Denver. And if we were to deal with the Denver
sites as well, we would still be neglecting PCBs in the
Hudson River and PBBs in Michigan. If we restrict our-
selves to just waste, we will leave a large gap because in
the chemical business one man's meat is literally another
man's poison. Waste from one company is feedstock to
another. What we must explore is the entirety of how
and why toxics are entering the environment, whether
they are injuring people, and if so, how. Then we must
decide whether there should be a scheme to compensate
victims, and if so, for what injuries.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held 11
days of hearings in 1979. In the House, two separate committees
held hearings and proposed separate bills for dealing with differ-
ent aspects of the larger hazardous substances problem. On Sep-
tember 19,1980, after often-contentious negotiations, the House
passed a bill proposing a "superfund" to deal primarily with
chemical emergencies.
The Senate meanwhile developed its own "superfund" bill to
deal with emergencies, but which also allowed injured parties to
sue in Federal court for damages. This bill languished in the
Workers move drums of toxic waste
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
THE BIRTH OF SUPERFUND
MORE ON CERCLA'S
DEFINITIONS
"RELEASE"
What's Included: "[A]ny spilling, leaking,
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, dis-
charging, Injecting, escaping, leaching,
dumping, or disposing into the environ-
ment."
What's Excluded: Releases related to work-
place-related incidents, nuclear incidents,
motor vehicle exhaust emissions, and agri-
cultural activities. These types of releases
are covered by other laws.
'HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE"
What's Included: CERCLAdefines hazardous
substances by referring to other environ-
mental statutes and includes under the defi-
nition: "hazardous waste" under RCRA;
"hazardous substances" and "toxic pollut-
ants" under the Clean Water Act; hazard-
ous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act;
and imminently hazardous chemical sub-
stances under TSCA.
What's Excluded: Petroleum and natural gas.
"POLLUTANT OR
CONTAMINANT"
What's Included: CERCLA's definition is
broad and includes any substance that "may
reasonably be anticipated to cause death,
disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer,
genetic mutation, physiological malfunctions
(including malfunctions in reproduction) or
physical deformations."
What's Excluded: Petroleum and natural gas.
Senate until after the 1980 Presidential elections. In November,
Senator Stafford introduced an amended proposal. It was a ver-
sion of this proposal that was eventually enacted.
On December 11,1980, President Jimmy Carter signed the new
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund). Calling it "land-
mark in its scope and in its impact on preserving the environ-
mental quality of our country," President Carter stated that it
"Ms a major gap in the existing laws of our country."
NEW AUTHORITIES PROVIDED BY
CERCLA
If there was such a thing as a "truth in labeling" requirement for
statutes, Superfund would be one law that would meet it. For (as
passed by Congress in 1980 and strengthened by amendments in
1986), CERCLA is truly a:
• Comprehensive
• Environmental Response
• Compensation, and
• liability Act.
Comprehensive Coverage of Toxic Waste Threats
Congress recognized that the problem was broad - and that broad
solutions had to be created. Love Canal showed what could hap-
pen with the improper disposal of chemical wastes, but the issue
was bigger than that. As stated by a 1980 Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee report:
When confronted with an incident of toxic chemical con-
tamination, it is often difficult to distinguish whether it is
the result of a spill, a continuing discharge, an intentional
dumping, or a waste disposal site. Any legislative solution
•would also have to address, in addition to disposal sites,
the closely related problems of spills and other releases of
dangerous chemicals which can have an equally devastat-
ing effect on the environment and human health.
Therefore, CERCLA provides comprehensive authority for the
government to act. EPA can respond to:
• A "release" or "substantial threat" of a release of a "haz-
ardous substance" into the environment; or
• A "release" or "substantial threat" of a release of "any
pollutant or contaminant which may present an imminent
and substantial danger to public health or welfare."
8
-------
Super/fond: 20 Years of Protecting Human Health find the Environment
THE BIRTH OF SUPERFUND
"Release" includes virtually any situation where a hazardous sub-
stance is released from its normal container. "Substantial threat of
release" is even broader, allowing EPA to respond in situations like
corroding tanks or abandoned drums, where there is even a risk of
"release."
Environmental Responses to Toxic Waste Threats
EPA may respond to an actual or potential release of any quan-
tity of a "hazardous substance" or "pollutant or contaminant" in
two general ways:
• Removals; or
• Remedial actions.
Removals deal primarily with environmental emergencies—and
are generally short-term actions to diminish the threat of a release.
Examples include cleaning up waste spilled from a container, build-
ing a fence around a site, or providing fresh water to residents
whose regular water supply has been contaminated.
Remedial actions are long-term, permanent cleanups. Examples
include excavating waste and transporting it to a facility that can
safely handle it, treating the waste to remove contaminants, or
placing day covers over or barriers around the waste to prevent
migration. Remedial actions may take many years and cost mil-
lions of dollars, in order to make the site safe for human health
and the environment.
Compensating for Response Actions
Most of the 1980 press coverage about the passage of CERCLA
concentrated on the Superfund Trust Fund, which gave the stat-
ute its nickname. The Trust Fund is financed from various taxes
and court awards from the parties found responsible for hazard-
ous substances releases. The 1980 kw authorized a Taist Fund
of $1.6 billion. The 1986 amendments to CERCLA increased
this amount to $8.5 billion.
The Trust Fund can be used to address both emergencies and
longer-term cleanups. It can pay for both actual cleanup costs
and for EPA's enforcement actions. It also is available to pay for
certain natural resource damages, reimbursement of local gov-
ernments, and claims by private parties.
SOURCES
Environmental tax on Recovery of response
corporations costs from responsible
parties
Tax on crude oil
received at U.S.
refineries
General tax
revenues
Tax on petroleum
products imported
into the U.S.
Tax on certain
chemicals
SUPERFUND
TRUST FUND
Claims for
natural resource
damages
Government actions to
respond to an emer-
gency or conduct a
long-term cleanup of
a site, including
costs of enforcement
Research,
development, and
demonstration
costs
Claims by entities
other than the
Federal government
which have incurred
necessary response
costs
Reimbursement to local
governments that have
conducted response actions
Many times, the Trust Fund provides financing so EPA can ad-
dress a hazardous substance release first, rather than have to wait
for a court to determine who was responsible for causing the
release. Later, when the court determines who is liable, EPA
recovers its response costs and the Trust Fund is reimbursed.
This is one of the major innovations of CERCLA since, prior to
-------
Sttperfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
THE BIRTH OF SUPERFUND
WHY THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY PAYS
UNDER CERCLA
Congress wanted to minimize the time spent in litigation — and
instead concentrate those resources to actually clean up toxic waste
sites. That is why CERCLA contains strong enforcement provi-
sions and why liability under CERCLA is "strict," "retroactive," and
"joint and several." Here is a short explanation of these legal terms:
STRICT LIABILITY - In many cases, a plaintiff in an injury
suit needs to prove that the defendant is "at fault" before a court
will award damages (e.g., that the defendant is negligent or acted
in bad faith). This would be difficult in many Superfund cases
because (as in the Love Canal example) wastes may have been
deposited decades ago, and the records and memories of wit-
nesses are often old and sketchy. In CERCLA, the plaintiff only
needs to prove that the defendant is one (or more) of the four
entities defined as liable by the statute. Those entities are:
• Former owners and operators of a vessel or facility;
• Current owners and operators of a vessel or facility;
• Persons who arranged for the disposal or treatment of haz-
ardous substances; or
• Transporters of hazardous substances who selected the site
for disposal or treatment.
Therefore, under CERCLA strict liability, the government only
needs to prove that the defendant falls within one of these four
entity categories - not that the defendant acted incorrectly. The
reasoning is that the release caused injury to human health or
the environment - and the entities that created the hazardous
wastes should pay for cleaning up the release. Otherwise, the
cost would be borne by the taxpayers.
RETROACTIVE LIABILITY - To use the Love Canal ex-
ample again, all the waste was dumped long before CERCLA
was passed in 1980 — but the "release" of that waste was current
and causing injury after the statute was enacted. Retroactive
liability means that parties found responsible for causing a re-
lease are liable even if their actions occurred prior to CERCLA's
enactment. Congress intended that the parties who were re-
sponsible for creating the problem should also be the parties
who pay for cleaning it up - whether those actions occurred
before CERCLA or not.
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY - At Love canal,
Hooker Chemical and Plastics (now Occidental Chemical Corpo-
ration) owned the site in the 1940s and early 1950s, and was re-
sponsible for a large portion of the wastes. However, the landfill
was also used by other parties (e.g., the City of Niagara Falls). As
with most Superfund sites, the wastes came from different sources
and resulted in an indivisible "toxic soup." Under joint and sev-
eral liability, each PRP is potentially liable for the whole cost of
cleanup, and it is the responsibility of the PRPs to allocate
"shares" of liability among themselves. This assures that the
PRPs, not the innocent public, will bear the risk of any uncer-
tainty over who is responsible for which part of the harm.
the statute's enactment, the common law re-
quired that liability be determined first before
any action could be taken.
Finding Liability for Releases
EPA has three basic options when it responds
to a release:
• Conducting the cleanup itself using
money from the Trust Fund and then
seeking to recover its costs from the
potentially responsible parties (PRPs);
• Compelling the PRPs to perform the
cleanup through administrative or ju-
dicial proceedings; or
• Entering into settlement agreements
with PRPs mat require them to clean
up the site or pay for cleanup.
In all cases, the responsible party pays since
CERCLA provides EPA with strong enforce-
ment authorities. Congress decided that the
parties who created these sites should be the
ones who pay for cleaning them up.
1O
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
A SERIES OF FIRSTS
EMERGENCY CLEANUP BY NEW^
'^
Bulfitt County, Kentucky (198 1) — EPA responded "under- its newly established
Superfund Program, to a waste disposal site discharging pollutants into a tributary
of the Ohio River. After inspecting the site formerly owned by A.J_. Taylor, EPA
"discovered that ground ^ water,, surface "wateri and sbllslwere::pdlluted with heavy
metals, volatile organic compounds, and plastics from spills and approximately
4,OQO deteriorating and leaking waste drums which had accumulated over a 10-
year period. With an expenditure of $400,000 from the Superfund, EPA responded
on behalf of approximately 1 00 residents, who" lived within a pne-mile radius of the
site and were at risk of exposure. Through response actions and voluntary removal
of wastes by known generators, the drums were removed and an interceptor trench
installed, halting runoff into a nearby creek.
In 1983,_EPA added the Valley of the Drums to a newly-established list of sites
needing priority attention. In 1987; EPA began a long-term cleanup, including in-
stallation of a clay cap, a perimeter drainage treatment system and monitoring wells.
Operation and maintenance of the remedy was turned over to the Kentucky Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. In 1996, EPA removed
the site from its priorities list.
Congress passed a Superfund statute, but it was up to EPA to
create a Superfund program.
Because of national media attention on the problems at Love
Canal, the Valley of the Drums, and other high profile sites, im-
mediate and effective action was expected of EPA. Drums had
to be collected and removed. Fires extinguished. Leaks from
tanks and waste ponds stopped.
But responding to spills was not enough. EPA needed to clean
up sites so they would continue to be safe in the future.
In order to make the Superfund program effective for the long-
term, a large investment of resources was needed. EPA had to
create a regulatory framework to cany out the mandate of Con-
gress. This had to be done even though EPA faced a series of
unknowns. The health effects of chemicals needed to be researched.
Technologies had to be created to safely treat, store, and dis-
pose of wastes. There was a general lack of data about specific
sites - coupled with a fledgling scientific understanding of waste
migration. There also was a shortage of trained personnel, such
as engineers, to address these problems.
Nothing like Superfund had ever existed before. Over time, a
strong and effective program evolved to protect human health
and the environment from the dangers of hazardous wastes.
"Valley of the Drums"
11
-------
Sitperfttnd: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
A SERIES OF FIRSTS
THE CHALLENGE OF SUPERFUND
IN 1980
Determining the number of sites where
potentially significant contamination ex-
isted;
Assessing who was responsible for the
waste;
Developing a structure to enforce
CERCLA;
Determining the contaminants and the
quantities dumped;
Researching whether the contaminants
were migrating away from the dump sites
(and in what concentrations, in what di-
rections and how far);
Calculating the actual human exposure
to contaminants and the potential health
risks of such exposure; and
Creating technologies to remove or con-
trol contaminants.
Chemical fire requiring emergency response
ASSESSING THE HAZARDS
When EPA's head of waste management, Thomas C. Jorling,
testified before Congress in the wake of Love Canal, he admit-
ted that his testimony was based on "very rough data." A lack
of definitive data was a theme reiterated in both the House and
Senate reports that accompanied the passage of CERCLA.
There was enough information available to know that releases
of hazardous substances were a serious problem that needed to
be addressed - but beyond that, there were major gaps in un-
derstanding.
At the inception of EPA's Superfund program, there was much to
be learned about industrial wastes and their potential for causing
public health problems. Before this problem could be addressed
on the program level, the types of wastes most often found at sites
needed to be determined, and their health effects studied. Identi-
fying and quantifying risks to health and the environment for the
extremely broad range of conditions, chemicals, and threats at un-
controlled hazardous waste sites posed formidable problems.
Many of these problems stemmed from the lack of information
concerning the toxicities of the over 65,000 different industrial
chemicals listed as having been in commercial production since
1945. This lack of knowledge challenged program development
and slowed site cleanup.
Assessing the health effects of chemicals became the responsibility
of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR),
which was established by CERCLA. ATSDR's mission was to
provide emergency care and testing of persons exposed to toxic
chemicals, maintain registries (or long-term health records) of
these exposed persons, and establish a data bank of the hun-
dreds of known toxic materials.
DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGIES
In addition to developing a better understanding of chemical haz-
ards, the Nation had to develop new technical capabilities for
assessing, and then treating or containing wastes. EPA had little
experience with complex cleanups at large toxic waste sites prior
to Superfund. Very little was known about exactly how to pro-
ceed in preventing the spread of these contaminants into the
environment. Technologies had to be created to:
• Assess the problem;
• Collect the wastes;
• Treat the wastes so that the contaminants presented less
of a threat;
12
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
A SERIES OF FIRSTS
Dispose of the wastes in ways that were safe from addi-
tional exposure; and
Ensure the safety of the hazardous waste workers.
CREATING THE REGULATORY STRUCTURE
The framework was established by Congress, but the actualmecha-
nisms for implementing CERCIA were the responsibility of EPA.
For example, at the Valley of the Drums site, EPA was able to
respond quickly under the new Superfund statute to the immedi-
ate threat posed by the leaking drums, but it took the creation of
a Superfund program to clean up the site so it was safe for the
long-term.
One of the biggest questions that EPA needed to answer in or-
der to prepare the regulatory framework for Superfund was: "How
dean is dean?" In other words, at what level was a cleanup con-
sidered protective of human health and the environment?
EPA created three major regulatory mechanisms under Superfund
to establish cleanup standards and procedures. They are: the Na-
tional Contingency Plan (NCP), the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS), and the National Priorities List (NPL). EPA has revised
these three mechanisms over the years based on new understand-
ings on how best to protect human health and the environment.
They still remain the foundation of how EPA responds to a haz-
ardous substance release.
The National Contingency Plan
The NCP is the primary regulation dictating CERCIA response
actions. The NCP sets forth detailed procedures to be followed
by EPA, the States, and private parties in selecting and conduct-
ing emergency removals and long-term cleanup actions.
The Hazard Ranking System
EPA developed the HRS to evaluate the environmental hazards
of a site. The HRS is a numerically-based screening system that
uses information from initial, limited investigations to assess the
hazards a site poses to human health and the environment.
The HRS is designed to estimate the potential risks presented by
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollut-
ants, or contaminants at one site compared to those presented by
other sites. The calculation of the HRS score analyzes potential
"pathways" of exposure to human population or a sensitive en-
vironment. Each release, or potential release, is analyzed based
SUPERFUND SUCCESSFULLY
• RESPONDS IN TIMES BEACH
v the Town of Times Beach, Missouri, captured
\the Nation's attention in 1982, when EPA, act-
ing upon recommendations from the U.S.
Centers for pisease Control, closed down the
:«town after di^cpvering dangerous levels of
,-dioxin. Roads to the town were blocked off,
""Sfid the site was patrolled around-the-clock
by security guards. The contamination pc-
Fcurreclbecauselhe town sprayed dioxm-
^:cbntjrnm5it§d waste, oil on streets and park-
ing lots to control dust.
times Beach was one of the most extensive
cleanups in Superfund history. In 1983, EPA
added the .site to the first NPL. After the site
.-'r.was listed, EPA permanently relocated more
ij.tharjJ2,OQQ people and tore down all of the
•;: homes.and businesses.
Cleaning the Times Beach Superfund site
. was:a.massive effort that included .installa-
^ipiCLof,a temporary incinerator to burn the
:.Contaminated .soil and the erection of a 15-
foot high barrier around the incinerator to
protect it from regular flooding by the
Meramec River. By the end of 1997, cleanup
of the site was completed by EPA and Syntex
: Agribusiness, the company that assumed
J responsibility of the site's cleanup. More than
265,000 tons of dioxin-contaminated soil from
ithe site andI 27 nearby areas had been
^cleaned.
EPAand the State of Missouri worked closely
with Syntex during cleanup to ensure that the
restoration made the site suitable for produc-
tive use. In 1999, a new 500-acre State park
commemorating the famous Route 66
opened on what was once one of the most
recognized sites in the country. Thousands
of visitors now enjoy the scenic riverside area
in Missouri once known as Times Beach.
13
-------
Superfimd: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
A SERIES OF FIRSTS
REGULATIONS FOR DISPOSAL OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE
While CERCLA provides authorities for re-
sponding to hazardous waste releases, the
authority for the treatment, storage, or disposal
of those wastes is found in the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
In 1984, Congress updated RCRA through the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA), which prohibited land disposal of
certain hazardous wastes at new and exist-
ing landfills, and at any other facility respon-
sible for the treatment, disposal, or storage
of hazardous waste. Under EPA's regulations,
disposal site operators are responsible for the
wastes for 30 years following site closure, and
ground water monitoring is required at all dis-
posal sites. However, many of those facilities
that recycle their waste will be exempt from
the requirements because EPA wants to en-
courage reuse of waste over waste burial.
With the passage of HSWA, Congress cre-
ated authority for EPA's Land Disposal Re-
strictions (LDR) program. The LDR program
requires that protective treatment standards
be met to ensure that toxic components of
hazardous waste are properly treated prior
to land disposal.
Abandoned drums containing hazardous waste
on exposure from pathways such as ground water, surface water,
air, and soil exposure.
The National Priorities List
The HRS score is the primary method for determining placement
on the National Priorities list (NPL). The NPL identifies the sites
that are national priorities for receiving further investigations and
long-term cleanup actions. The first NPL was announced in
1983, with 406 priority sites identified. One of those sites was
the Valley of the Drums. Because it was on the NPL, the site
qualified for a Superfund-financed remedial action - and today,
the "Valley of the Drums" is remembered mainly for historical
reasons since the area is no longer the location of leaking drums
and is safe for humans and the environment.
The NPL is updated regularly based on the evaluation of both
new sites and the progress of cleanup at sites already on the NPL.
As of October 2000, there are 1,450 sites on the final NPL -
with 59 additional sites proposed for inclusion. Over the years,
in addition to completing remedial construction at over 750 sites,
EPA has deleted 219 sites from the NPL Developing and main
taining the NPL requires close coordination among EPA and State
agencies.
STRENGTHENING THE STATUTORY
AUTHORITY
In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Re-
authorization Act (SARA) to strengthen CERCLA authorities.
Based on EPA's experiences in implementing Superfund, Congress
determined that the scope of hazardous waste sites was far larger
and the sites' associated problems were much more complicated
than originally anticipated. To provide more authority to handle
these problems, Congress made major changes to strengthen the
cleanup and enforcement processes. Congress also stressed the
importance of permanent remedies and innovative treatment tech-
nologies, and increased the size of the Trust Fund from
$1.6 billion to $8.5 billion.
One of the key provisions of SARA was the creation of a stron-
ger mechanism for public participation. Because site remediation
can have significant effects on communities, SARA, required public
participation activities throughout the Superfund process and
provided authority for EPA's community right-to-know program.
SARA also required State involvement at every phase of the
Superfund program.
14
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
A SERIES OF FIRSTS
SARA, contained many provisions to strengthen EPA's enforce-
ment authority and thereby speed up the pace of cleanups. One
of the major changes was to encourage voluntary settlements
instead of litigation. This provided the basis for EPA's "Enforce-
ment First" policy, which has resulted in more sites being cleaned
up by the responsible parties instead of by EPA using the Trust
Fund. Also new with the SARA amendments was the requirement
that facilities owned or operated by the Federal government com-
ply with CERCLA in the same manner and to the same extent as
any non-governmental entity.
PREVENTING AND PREPARING FOR CHEMICAL
EMERGENCIES AND TERRORIST ACTS
In the early hours of December 3,1984, toxic gas leaked from a
chemical plant in Bhopal, India killing 3,800. A year later, a
smaller leak from a pesticide plant in Institute, West Virginia
injured plant personnel and local residents -showing that the
United States was not immune to a serious chemical industrial
accident.
In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Com-
munity Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) as Title III of SARA. EPCRA
requires public records of chemicals managed at a facility, and
provides EPA with authority to work with States and communi-
ties to prevent accidents and develop emergency plans in case
of dangerous releases of chemicals.
EPA works with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and 15 other Federal agencies to respond to national
environmental emergencies. After the 1995 bombing of a Fed-
eral building in Oklahoma City killed 168, EPA supported the
Nation's effort to plan for prevention and preparedness of chemi-
cal, biological, and nuclear releases due to terrorist acts. EPA
also provides technical advice to foreign countries facing major
environmental emergencies.
FINDING THE RESPONSIBLE
PARTIES LIABLE IN COURT
CERCLA provided strong authorities to make
the responsible parties pay for cleanup. But
EPA and the Department of Justice had to
create a structure to enforce those provi-
- sions and develop a body of legal prece-
dent in the Federal courts. One of the .first..
major cases under CERCLA was United
States v. Monsanto, involving the South
Carolina Recycling & Disposal, Inc. site (a.k.a
"Bluff Road") in South Carolina.
A complaint was brought against the site
owners prior to the enactment of CERCLA,
under a provision of the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act, to restrain an im-
minent and substantial endangerment to
health or the environment. In 1981, notices
were sent under CERCLA to the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs), and a settlement
was reached with some of the PRPs in 1982.
Later that year, the United States brought suit
againstthe non-settling PRPs, and the chemi-
cal industry picked the Bluff Road site as the
test case for challenging CERCLA's liability
^provisions.
Both the United States district court and the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed
CERCLA's liability provisions, most particu-
larly that responsible parties could be found
retroactively liable for actions that took place
before CERCLA was enacted, and that each
responsible party was jointly and severally
liable for the entire cost of a Superfund
cleanup.
The settlers are responsible for cleaning up
the Bluff Road site. This is standard practice
now, but Bluff Road represents the first time
this was done. What's more, the Monsanto
court precedent has been crucial for later suc-
cessful enforcement actions under CERCLA.
15
-------
-------
STEPS FOR CLEANING UP A SUPERFUND SITE
*s^r^^^
in Pennsylvania.
General Description of Cleanup
Process begins when a hazardous substance: release
(e.g.,sp.n, abandoned site) is identified and reported to
CrrA. '•• • ' ' . . ' - ' ".'-.-'. ... •.; "
Cleanup of Ambler Asbestos Piles Site
SITE DISCOVERY
In March 1980, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
identified an asbestos dump, containing wastes gen-
erated from the early 1930s through 1980 as an area
of concern to EPA.
Site is listed in the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
^S,Co°mpensdtion and Lfabllltv Information System
(GERCLIS), which inventories and tracks releases pro-
viding comprehensive information to response agencies
CERCLIS
, All relevant information including data from earlier State
' site investigations was documented in CERCLIS
I
PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT (PA)
This is the first stage of a site.assessment Preliminary
ASRfiRSmAntc ar-d rwiitj-Ji IA*A,J A_ _i_i_ _ J
The PA identified three asbestos-contaminated waste
^ — .—•»>'-'-*v'-'.w*j*jii ici (i r I clll UEHciry
Assessments are conducted to determine if an Emer-
-~— wt nc*i mi idtcu VVctCJlfc;
piles and a series of filter bed lagoons which threat-
Qnar* tl->/^ C f\r\r\ i i . • - ^-—w»,«.
„ fc%J, U^LV^I it in ic; 11 ell I dlllcr"
gency Removal Action is necessary, and to establish
.^IT& lnona/-vH*-»t-i v-if!A»rx:_ _
^ ^l AU s* rt "-.yvwuvj vviti^ii tinectl"
ened the 6,000 people who live within a half-mile ra-
flit 10 r\r +V\f^ mlr*. A_..I_I._ • . .
Site Inspection priorities.
t ^ «—'— K""H«' VHIU IIVB wtmin a nair-mile ra-
. dius of the site A public playground was targeted for
The second stage of a site Assessment involves on-
site investigations to ascertain the extent of a release
or potential for release. The Site Inspection usually in-
volves sample collection and may also mclude the in-
stallation of ground water monitoring wells
"""—--'-"---"-•'*•'• ~-^^"^i-^''ij^-^'-^?^4^--^;^.^;^;,i;j3^^,^ji^j^A ^rt^'^jsp1*'!^
SITE INSPECTION (si)
• . ^_
The SI was completed ,n 1984, revealing extensive as-
bestos contamination in air, water, and soil samples
As a result of the SI, the Centers for Disease Control
, issued a Public Health Advisory recommending the
,jjclosure of the nearby playground
~**gf
REMOVAL ACTION*
A short-term, fast-track Federal response to prevent
minimize, or mitigate damage at sites where hazard-
ous materials have been released or pose a threat of
release. Removal Actions may occur at any step of the
response process.
EPA implemented Emergency Removal Actions to es-
tablish a soil and vegetative cover, install a drainage
, system, provide erosion control measures, and remove
^contaminated playground equipment.
Site assessment information is then used in the HRS
MRS is a screening system to evaluate environmental
hazards of a site.
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) PACKAGE
October 1984, the site was evaluated, and the HRS '
high en°U9h ±±to be j
18
-------
that
Here are some of the major events
have contributed to the creation and
evolution ofEPA's Superfund program.
1976
Responding to public concern over "midnight
dumping" of toxic wastes, Congress establishes
authority for controls over hazardous waste from
generation to disposal under the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act CRCRA).
Congress enacts the Toxic Substances Control
ActClSCA), which provides EPA with authority to pro-
tect public health and the environment through con-
trols on toxic chemicals that pose an unreasonable
risk of injury.
1977
Asparkftom a welder's torch touches off aseries of
chemlcalreactions thatignite alarge chemical-
waste treatment focility in Bridgeport, New Jer-
sey leaving six dead and hospitalizing 35. Itis reported
that, "the raging fire propels waste drums through the
air and blankets the city in a funnel of black smoke
that reaches hundreds of feet into the sky."
1978
President Carter declares a State of Emergency
atLoveCanal, NewYorkafter a startling increase
in skin rashes, miscarriages, and birth defects. Love
Canal heightens public awareness of the grave and
imminent perils of unregulated hazardous waste
dumping in communities.
1979
House and Senate committees hold extensive
hearings on the dangers posedby toxic waste
dumps and major bills are introduced to create a
"superfund" for dealing with these dangers in both
houses of Congress.
A series of chemical
reactions ignite a large
chemical-waste
treatment facility in
Bridgeport, New Jersey
0 /I
flbldewisteburste into flames at a waste storage fecit
ity in Elizabeth, NJ sending a thick black plume of smoke
and ash over a 15 mile area and raising fears of widespread
chemical contamination. The fire burns for 10 hours as State
officials issue an environmental advisory closing schools and
urging residents to close aE doors and windows and remam
indoors.
Congress passes the Comprehensive EnvironmentalRe-
sponse, Compensation, and liability Act (CERCIA or
Superfund) to address the dangers of abandoned or uncon-
trolled hazardous waste dumps by developing a nationwide
program for: emergency response; information gathering and
analysis; liability for responsible parties; and site cleanup.
CERCIA also creates a Trust Fund (or "Superfund") to fi-
nance emergency responses and cleanups.
Congress
Resource
Conservation
and Recovery
Act(RCRA)
enacted
1976
passes the
Toxic
Substances
Control Act
(TSCA)
'77
?Sup&fund successfully responds to the "Valley of the
' Drums" site inKentocky drawing national attention as EPA
acts on behalf of public safety by removing over 4,000 drums
and installing protective measures.
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act
(CERCLA or Superfund) enacted
State of Emergency
declared at Love Canal,
New York House and Senate
hold hearings on A toxic waste fire burns
toxic waste dump for 10 hours in
dangers Elizabeth, New Jersey
'78
'79
'SO
Superfund successfl
responds to the "Vaf
of the Drums" site |
Kentucky
'81
THE BIRTH OF SUPERFUND
-------
> TIME LINE:
1982^
; EPA!publishestheHazardRankingSysteni(HRS)
astlieprincipalnieclianisrnforevahiatingeiTvi-
ronmentalhazardsofasite. HRS is a numerically
based screening system that uses information from
preliminary investigations to assess the potential threats
that sites pose to human health or the environment.
EPA reaches the first major CERCIA multi-gen-
erator settlement, where the parties implemented
the cleanup. The settlement involved the South Carolina
Recycling and Disposal, Inc. site (a.k.a. "BluffRoad").
EPA issues first national guidelines for imple-
menting CERCIA in its revised National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). The NCP sets forth the procedures
that must be followed by EPA and private parties in
emergency responses and cleanups.
A landfill protest in Warren County, North Carolina
raises new concerns over the unequal distribution of
environmental threats in disadvantaged and minority
communities, fostering thebirthof meenvironmen-
tal justice movement
1983
.fUsing .the HRS screening system, EPA creates the
firstNational Priorities list (NPL), classifying
406 sites as the nation's priorities for cleanup un-
der Superfund. Only sites on the NPL may qualify
for long-term remedial actions financed by the Su-
perfund. The NPL is updated on a regular basis.
EPA relocates more than 500 residents of the
town of limes Beach, Missouri - and the entire
town is dosed down - because of widespread dioxin
contamination.
- First multi-generator settlement reached
where the parties implemented cleanup
Dublishes -
Hazard
jnking
m (HRS)
82
— Revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan provides first national
guidelines for implementing CERCLA
More than 500 residents of Times
Beach, Missouri are relocated
1984
'Concerns about gasoline and hazardous chemicals seeping from storage
tanks and landfills into underground drinking supplies prompt Congress to
enact the Hazardous andSolid Waste Amendments to RCRA under which
EPA makes efforts to prevent such contamination and requires the treat-
ment of hazardous waste prior to land disposal.
A toxic gas release inBhopal, India kills 3,800 raising public concern
about explosions and leaks of toxic chemicals. This incident led to the
passage of the first community right-to-know law under the 1986 Super-
fund Amendments.
1986
^TheFriedman Property site in New Jersey becomes the first site deleted
/from tfie final NPL.
Congress passes the Superfiind Amendments andReauthorization Act
(SARA), which in part: strengthened CERCLA's enforcement provisions;
encouraged voluntary settlements instead of litigation; stressed the impor-
tance of permanent remedies and innovative treatment technologies; increased
State involvement in every phase of the Superfund program; increased the
focus on human health problems posed by hazardous waste sites; and en-
couraged greater citizen participation in how sites are cleaned up.
SARA also contains the first emergency planning andcommunityright-
to-know law requiring public records of chemicals managed at a facility,
and providing EPA with the authority to work with States and localities to
prevent accidents and develop emergency plans in case of dangerous releases
of chemicals.
Birth of
environmental
justice
movement
EPA issues the
first National
Priorities List
(NPL)
'83
Congress passes the
Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments
'84
— Toxic gas
release in
Bhopal, India
kills 3,800
'85
_J
First site is -
deleted from
the NPL
'86
i
— Congress passes the
Superfund Amendments and
Reautriorization Act
First emergency planning and
community right-to-know law
'87 1988
A SERIES OF FIRSTS
-------
Superfund,: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
SUPERFUND ACHIEVES 5,000™ MILESTONE IN MISSOURI
St. Louis, Missouri (1998) —EPA completes its 5,000fh successful removal action at
an abandoned drum reclamation plant, making way for potential economic develop-
ment in the metropolitan area. A fire on the 11-acre Great Lakes Container site in
1995 alerted officials of the potential dangers associated with the site and prompted
several environmental investigations. Investigations revealed buried drums of haz-
ardous substances, asbestos, and high levels of lead and polychlorinated biphe-
nyls (PCBs) were threatening the environment and the health of nearby residents.
EPA conducted an eight-month Removal Action to mitigate these threats, including
the removal of 55,000 tons of contaminated soil, collection of 680 drums of hazardous
substances, and the treatment of 580,000 gallons of water.
IMPROVING CLEANUP PROCEDURES
EPA has maintained an ongoing effort to reform and revitalize
the Superfund program.
In 1989, '
Progmtn. Also known as the "90-Day Study," the Management Re-
view proposed 50 specific recommendations to immediately con-
trol threats to human health, provide for efficient and effective
cleanups, develop innovative technologies, encourage community
participation, and get responsible parties to pay for cleanups.
In 1990, EPA revised the NCP and the HRS in accordance with
SAM. The NCP was revised to provide for broader response
actions, increased State and public participation, and stronger en-
forcement procedures. The HRS was revised to ensure that, to the
maximum extent feasible, it accurately assessed the relative degree
of risk to human health and the environment posed by sites.
In 1991, EPA convened a 30-Day Task Force to develop options
for accelerating the rate of cleanups and to improve how the
risks posed by hazardous waste sites are evaluated. The "30-Day
Study" culminated in initiatives to:
• Set up aggressive cleanup targets;
• Streamline the Superfund process;
• Address site specific issues that cause delay;
• Accelerate private party cleanups; and
• Review risk assessment and risk management practices.
A year later, EPA introduced the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model (SACM). SACM reduced the time and money spent at
Superfund sites, while continuing to protect human health and
the environment. After SACM, EPA began measures to reduce
risk and start cleanups earlier in the process.
of hazardous waste
17
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
General Description of Cleanup (cont.)
Cleanup of Ambler Asbestos Piles Site (cont.)
NPL LISTING
The NPL is a list of abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous
substance sites that are the national priorities for long-term
cleanup, making them eligible for Federal cleanup funds.
In June 1986 the site was formally added to the NPL.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY (RI/FS)
Once a site has been placed on the NPL, a Remedial
Investigation (Rl) and Feasibility Study (FS) are con-
ducted. The purpose of the Rl is to collect data neces-
sary to assess risk and support the selection of response
alternatives. The FS is a process for developing, evalu-
ating, and selecting a remedial action.
\ The RI/FS was issued in September of 1989. The Rl
' revealed a total of 1.5 million cubic yards of asbestos-
* contaminated wastes abandoned on-site, with notable
levels of asbestos detected in Wissahickon Creek, which
borders the property. Feasible actions to mitigate the
threat of asbestos release were explored.
RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
Once an RI/FS is completed, a Record of Decision
(ROD) is generated, which outlines cleanup actions
planned for a site.
I In 1988 and 1989, two RODs were filed documenting
, the remedies selected for the site.
REMEDIAL DESIGN (RD)
The Remedial Design (RD) is the set of technical plans
and specifications for implementing the cleanup actions
chosen in the ROD.
1 In 1992, RD negotiations were completed and a plan
' was selected.
REMEDIAL ACTION (RA)
Remedial Action (RA) is the execution of construction
and other work necessary to implement the chosen
remedy.
A RA was reached in 1993, with agreed remedies con-
sisting of: regrading pile plateaus; reinforcing the soil
cover; installing erosion and sedimentation control de-
vices; treating surface water and runoff; installing or
upgrading the fence/locking gates; posting warning
signs; and monitoring the air.
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION
Construction completion is where physical construction
of all cleanup remedies is complete, all immediate
threats have been addressed, and all long-term threats
are under control.
Construction of all remedies was completed in August
f 1993 along with approvals and documentation.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M)
Operation and Maintenance are activities conducted at
a site after remedial construction activities have been
completed to ensure the cleanup methods are working
properly. • ' '•
~ ^ I Post-closure inspections, monitoring, maintenance of
I the piles, and preparation of a contingency plan oc-
™«*_w_ curred.
? .'•• -
DELETION FROM NPL
When EPA, in conjunction with the State, has determined
that all appropriate response actions have been imple-
mented and no further remedial measures are neces-
sary, a Notice of Final Action to Delete is published in the
Federal Register. If EPA receives no significant ad-
verse or critical comments from the public within the 30-
day comment period, the site is deleted from the NPL.
In December 1996, the Ambler Asbestos Pile site was
deleted from the NPL.
-------
• TIME LINE
1994
TheOSWEREnvironmentalJusticeTaskForce is created to address
concerns over die unequal distribution of environmental threats in disad-
vantaged and minority communities in EPA's waste programs.
xEPAcornJpletes its 5,000* emergencyremovalac-
tiori at the Great Lakes Container site in Missouri,
a milestone in_Superfund Program achievement.
1995
EPA ktunches the Brownflelds Action Agenda, which outlines four
activities to lielp States and communities implement and realize the ben-
efits of the Brownfields Program: seed money through pilots; clarifying
liability issues; encouraging partnerships and outreach; and supporting
job development and training.
Budding on the momentum of the First Round of Administrative Re-
fonTTSjEPAimnouncesdieSecondRoimdofAdministt-ativeReforms
with an emphasis on enforcement, economic development, community
involvement and outreach, environmental justice, consistent program
implementation, and State empowerment.
Later in 1995,EPAlaundiesaXhirdRoundofAdministrative Reforms,
in an effort to strengthen the Superfund Program based on three principles:
selecting remedies that are cost effective and protective; reducing litigation
by achieving common ground instead of conflict; and ensuring that States
and communities stay more informed and involved in cleanup decisions.
Superfund's emergency response programexpands to address ter-
rorist acts following die bombing of a Federal building in Oklahoma
City, killing 168. Today, Superfund assists nationwide efforts to prevent
stnd prepare for domestic chemical, biological, and nuclear terrorist acts.
^EPAapribuncesthe Superfiind Redevelopment
Initiative, a coordinated national program provid-
ing communities with the tools and information
needed to turn cleaned up Superfund sites into
productive assets like office parks, playing fields,
wetlands, and residential areas.
1 EPA^ch^vesitsTOO^ConstructionConipletion
" -'at thH;Ralph Grey Trucking Co. site in California.
Brownfields Initiative receives Harvard
University'sIrmovatiDnsinGcwenimentAward,
the highest honor to government'programs that
serve the public. Sponsored by the John F. Kennedy
School of Government, the award celebrates EPA's
effort to dean up abandoned, under utilized sites
and restore them to productive community use.
20th Anniversary of Superfiuid
1996
OiniulativeSiiperfiindcostrecoverysettlements exceed $2 billion.
Over 20 percent secured in 1996 alone. This landmark accomplishment
demonstrates EPA's commitment under die Superfund Reforms to pro-
mote enforcement setdements so responsible parties pay for cleanups.
1997
EPA launches die Brownfields National Partnership, linking the ef-
forts of more than 25 organizations and Federal agencies. Together,
die partners make over 100 commitments, which total $300 million in
Federal government investment, to assist cleanup and redevelopment
efforts for as many as 5,000 abandoned or under utilized properties.
:ond and Third-
Rounds of
dminislralive
Reforms
EPA Introduces
he Brownfields
Action Agenda
5
i — Superfund's emergency
response program expands to
address terrorist acts
$2 billion in Superfund
20th Anniversary of Superfund —
Brownfields Initiative wins Harvard's — i
Innovations in Government Award
5,000th Superfund 700th
cost recovery Brownfields National emergency Redevelopment Construction
settlements reached Partnersh
'96
i
'97
i
p launched removal action Initiative announced Completion
'98
i
'99
i
2OOO
i
?, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT ]
-------
, EPA^cohducts a "90-Day Study" Management Review
of the Superfund Program. Recommendations resulting
from the study include the need to focus on enforcement
first and to foster the use of innovative technologies. The
Study is the first in a series of evaluations by EPA to exam-
ine ways to improve Superfund.
The Exxon Valdez spills 11 million gallons of exude oil
into Alaska's Prince "William Sound, raising public conscious-
ness for both Superfund and oil spill planning and response.
EPA initiates "Enforcement First" policy where EPA gives
first priority to finding the parties who are potentially re-
sponsible for a release and gets them to address the prob-
lem they created.
199O
}ft / «
"Congress .Snacts the Oil Pollution Act, establishing a tax-
'based C9mpensation trust fund and makes the costs of pollu-
tion cleanup the responsibility of the oil handling industry.
Congress passes the Defense Base Closure and Realign-
ment Act to ensure a fair process for dosing military bases,
including those on the NPL.
EPA revises the Hazard Ranking System in accordance
with SARA to help ensure the HRS accurately assesses the
relative degree of risk to human health and the environment
posed by uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that may be placed
on the NPL.
EPA expands the National Oil and Hazardous Sub-
stances Pollution Contingency Plan in accordance with
SARA to provide for broader response actions, increased State
and public involvement, and stronger enforcement proce-
dures.
Congress passes the Pollution Prevention Act establish-
ing pollution prevention as national policy and encouraging
industries and academics to devise novel technologies and
processes that avoid the formation and/or use of hazard-
ous substances.
,1991
An EPA task force's 30-Day Study proposes initiatives for accelerating
the rate of cleanups and improving how the risks at hazardous waste
sites are evaluated.
fs.
S
ff
1992
EPA issues the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) to
streamline the traditional Superfund response process by provid-
ing prompt jeduction in risk and an earlier initiation of enforcement
and public participation activities.
EPA establishes Construction Completions as a new way to more
accurately reflect the work accomplished on Superfund sites.
These are sites where all construction is complete and the site is await-
ing official deletion from the NPL.
The Brownflelds Initiative is launched to redevelop abandoned, idle, or
under used industrial and commercial sites when expansion or redevelop-
ment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.
EPA issues its First Round of Administrative Reforms designed to
enhance enforcement fairness, reduce transaction costs, enhance
cleanup effectiveness and consistency, and enhance public involvement
and State participation.
Defense Base Closure, and •
Realignment Act enacted
"90-Day Study" -
Management Review of
the Superfund Program
Exxon Valdez —i
spills 11 million
gallons of crude oil
1988 '89
Oil Pollution
Act enacted
EPA initiates
"Enforcement
First" policy
'90
— EPA revises the Hazard Ranking System
|— EPA expands the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan
—Congress passes
Pollution
Prevention Act
'91
Superfund
Accelerated
Cleanup Model
streamlines the
traditional
Superfund response
process
-"30-Day Study" on
Superfund improve-
ments is completed
'92
'93
i
— Construction Completions
established to more accurately
reflect the work accomplished
on Superfund sites '
[— Brownfields Initiative
launched
OSWER
First Round of Environmental
Administrative Justice Task
Reforms Force is created
'94
i
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASI
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
Cleanup at Brtiin Lagoon site in Pennsylvania
Ground water sampling in progress
EPA's PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EPA works closely with DOJ to require PRPs
to bear the cost of cleanup. DOJ attorneys
work with EPA to negotiate Consent De-
crees, under which PRPs agree to a court
order requiring them to perform long-term
cleanups. DOJ and EPA also cooperate in
the enforcement of UAOs. In cases where
EPA has used the Trust Fund to finance
cleanups, DOJ initiates judicial actions to
recover the costs of cleanup from PRPs.
Over the past five years, DOJ has helped
EPA obtain over $3.5 billion in cleanup com-
mitments or cost recoveries from PRPs.
In 1993, EPA established the Construction Completions category
of sites within the NPL. EPA established this category as a new
way to more accurately reflect the work accomplished at Superfund
sites. By definition, these are sites where all physical remedy con-
struction has been completed and the site is awaiting official dele-
tion from the NPL. As of October 2000, 757 Superfund sites had
all cleanup construction completed.
PLACING "ENFORCEMENT FIRST"
Enforcement procedures were strengthened at the same time that
cleanups were being streamlined.
In the early 1980s, the Federal government enforced CERCLA
primarily by initiating lawsuits against responsible parties to stop
certain actions or have the Trust Fund pay for cleanups and then sue
the responsible parties to recover the costs. Either route was slow
and cumbersome. With SARA, Congress added a number of provi-
sions to strengthen CERCLA's enforcement procedures, and to en-
courage voluntary settlements with the PRPs.
After the "90-Day Study" found that cleanups were not moving
fast enough, EPA initiated the "Enforcement First" policy. Under
"Enforcement First," EPA looks for the parties who are poten-
tially liable for a release and gets them to address the problem they
created. The preferred method is to reach a voluntary settlement
with the PRPs, but EPA can also issue a unilateral administrative
order (UAO). By requiring the responsible parties to take action to
clean up a site, "Enforcement First" limits the amount of time
spent litigating cases in court and also saves the resources of the
Trust Fund for responding to "orphan" sites where no viable re-
sponsible parties can be found.
REVITALIZING THE PROGRAM THROUGH
THREE ROUNDS OF REFORMS
In 1993, EPA began a series of reforms to make the Superfund
program "faster, fairer, and more efficient." Building on the 90-
Day and 30-Day Studies, SACM, and the "Enforcement First"
policy, the first round of Superfund Reforms consisted of 17 ini-
tiatives that improved the effectiveness of cleanups and increased
enforcement fairness. The First Round also focused on expanding
State and public involvement in cleanup decisions.
In Round 2, EPA introduced an additional 12 reforms and tested
many of them through pilot projects. Round 3 consisted of 20
initiatives and took a "common sense" approach to reforming the
20
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Henltk und the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
program. Rounds 2 and 3 were introduced in 1995, and together
they strengthened the Superfund program by attempting to: re-
duce litigation and transaction costs; make cleanup decisions more
cost-effective; encourage the redevelopment of cleaned up sites;
get Slates, Tribes and communities more involved; and encourage
innovative technologies.
The National Academy of Public Administrators (NAPA) con-
ducted an in-depth examination of the Superfund reforms. In a
June 2000 report, NAPA concluded that "the reinvention effort
successfully addressed the key challenges facing Superfund" and
"implementation of the reforms has been accompanied by sub-
stantial improvement in aggregate measures of program output."
Reform of the program is ongoing. The reforms are being refined
and improved - and their impact is becoming broader. EPA is
consistently addressing stakeholders' criticisms and developing new
ways to make Superfund work faster, fairer, and more efficiently.
The remainder of this chapter presents a few examples of how
this revitalized program is succeeding in the field.
INCREASING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
AND PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
From the beginning of the Superfund program, EPA has recog-
nized the need for input from those affected by a release. It takes
a commitment by the affected community, State and local gov-
ernments, and the stakeholders to fully address problems caused
by hazardous waste. Here are just some of the ways that EPA
increases community participation and creates partnerships.
Facilitating Community Involvement
EPA believes that communities must have meaningful opportu-
nities for involvement early in the cleanup process and should
stay involved throughout site cleanup. Some of the ways that
this is done is through Community Advisory Groups (CAGs)
and Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs).
A CAG is a committee of citizens affected by a hazardous 'waste
site. CAGs are made up of representatives with diverse com-
munity interests and provide a public forum for community
members to present and discuss their needs and concerns re-
garding decision-making at a site.
Many Superfund sites present communities with complex is-
sues often requiring expertise in chemistry, engineering, geol-
ogy, toxicology, and law. A TAG is a grant of up to $50,000 for
community groups to hire the technical advisers needed to help
TECHNOLOGIES USED f o MAKE
; Jgday,Jhere^are as many ways to clean up a
Superfund site as there are types of sites.
= EPA tailors the techniques and technologies
to community needs and to the individual
problems posed by different areas of a site.
Here are some of the cleanup techniques that
EPA has developed to make sure that all ar-
eas of a site are safe:
-;.»- REMQVAL: Physically removing toxic
contaminants from the site to a facility that
can safely handle the waste.
• TREATMENT: Treating the waste at the
site to remove the toxic contaminants from
the soil, sediment, or ground water.
• RECYCLING: Treating or converting toxic
waste material to make it safe and reusing
-:~- it for other purposes.
• CONTAINMENT: Placing covers over or
barriers around waste to prevent migration
and to keep people from coming into con-
tact with the waste.
„• SOLIDIFICATION:Physically binding or
*: enclosing toxic contaminants within a sta-
bilized mass, like cement.
• STABILIZATION: Inducing chemical re-
actions between a stabilizing agent (such
as lime, Portland cement, fly ash, or kiln
dust) and the contaminants to reduce their
mobility.
• BIOREMEDIATION: Breaking down toxic
.contaminants by1 using .natural microorgan-
isms.
• CHEMICAL TRANSFORMATION:
Detoxifying contaminants by transforming
their chemical structure.
• NATURAL ATTENUATION: Using natu-
ral biotransformation processes such as
.dilution, dispersion, volatilization, bio-
degradation, adsorption, and chemical
reactions to reduce contaminant concen-
^ ; tratjpns to acceptable levels^
v» INCINERATION: Using extremely high
temperatures (1,600-2,200°F) to render or-
ganic contaminants harmless.
21
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
STEPS FOR ENFORCEMENT AT SUPERFUND SITES
The general approach followed by EPA to get the PRPs to clean up a site is detailed below. The left column is a step-
by-step explanation of the general steps taken by EPA to enforce cleanup and the right column is the process taken
at the Avtex Fibers site in Front Royal, Virginia.
The Avtex Fibers site, on MO acres on the Shenandoah River, operated since 1940 as a rayon-manufacturing center.
After cleanup, a portion of the site will be reused as soccer fields as a result of a partnership between EPA, the U.S.
Soccer Foundation, and the Front Royal community.
General Description of Enforcement
Enforcement Taken at Avtex Fibers
INITIATE PRP SEARCH
To search for individuals, companies, or other parties
potentially liable for cleanup costs, EPA reviews State
and Federal agency records, conducts title searches,
interviews site operators, and performs PRP financial
assessments.
EPA identified FMC Corporation (FMC) and Avtex Fi-
bers, Inc., (Avtex) as potential PRPs contributing to site
contamination. FMC owned the company from 1963
until 1976. Avtex purchased the site in 1976 and con-
tinued manufacturing operations until'1.989, when they
closed the plant and declared bankruptcy.
ISSUE GENERAL NOTICE LETTERS
EPA notifies identified PRPs of their potential liability,
usually through General Notice Letters.
EPA issued a Notification of Illegal Hazardous Waste
Activity to Avtex in 1980. On March 8,1985, EPAsenta
Notification of Potential Liability to FMC.
EXCHANGE INFORMATION
EPA begins an informal information exchange concern-
ing site conditions, PRP connections to the site, and
the identification of other PRPs.
The PRPs and EPA regularly exchanged information
from 1980 through 1985.
ISSUE SPECIAL NOTICE LETTERS (SNLs)
Special Notice Letters (SNLs) are issued to PRPs iden-
tifying the names and addresses of other PRPs as well
as, if available, the volume and nature of substances
each PRP contributed.
.... On February 13,1985, EPA notified Avtex that FMC Cor-
_J •. ; I poration was a potential PRP. .-- . ,
NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT
Issuance of SNLs trigger a moratorium, ceasing EPA re-
sponse and abatement actions for 60 days. The goal of
the moratorium Is to reach a settlement in which all the
PRPs agree to conduct or finance response activities.
EPA negotiated with both Avtex and FMC.
22
-------
-Superfiind: 20] Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
General Description
of Enforcement (cont.)
Enforcement Taken
atAvtex Fibers (cont.)
NEGOTIATION SUCCESSFUL?
YES
Consent Decree and
PRP Cleanup Response
When negotiations are
successful, EPA and the
PRPs enter into a Consent
Decree setting forth the
cleanup requirements.
^
NO
I
Issue UAO
If settlement negotiations
fail, EPA may issue a Uni-
lateral Administrative Or-
der (UAO) to force liable
parties to conduct the re-
sponse action.
YES
PRP Response
The PRPs comply
with the UAO and
finance response
activities.
In ..-.October 1989, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative
Order (UAO) requiring Avtex to undertake a PCB Removal
Action and evaluate the site to address releases that could
pose a potential threat. Due to bankruptcy, Avtex was
unable to carry out any response actions.
In February 1990, a second UAO was issued, requiring
FMC Corporation to operate the waste water treatment
plant to protect the Shenendoah River. A third UAO is-
' sued in October 1991 required FMC to provide potable
water to residents.
COMPLIANCE?
~
NO
I
Initiate Other Enforcement
Options
If the PRPs do not comply with
the UAO, the Government has
a number of options including:
• Seeking $25,000 a day pen-
alties for noncompliance;
•'•.' Referring the case to the De-
partment of Justice to sue in
Federal court;
• Using :the Trust Fund to fi-
::_ nance a cleanup and then:
suing the PRPs for cost re-
covery. --;
7 PRP DID COMPLY:
In May 1992, EPA entered into an Administrative Order
"*on Consent (AOC) to ensure safe and effective removal
of plant assets, including 44 million pounds of equip-
ment $nd scrap metal. A second AOC was entered into
in March 1993 by EPA and FMC to perform a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study for portions of the site.
A Consent Decree was proposed on July 9, 1999, re-
quiring FMC to pay $9.1 million for past and interim re-
sponse costs incurred by EPA at the Avtex site. In addi-
tion, FMC would perform future work at the site (est. $62.7
million) and pay for EPA oversight of the cleanup. Fi-
nally, FMC would oversee and participate in the removal
of abandoned onsite buildings and structures.
23
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
TRANSFORMING AN ABANDONED
NAVAL BASE TO HELP NATIVE
AMERICANS IN ALASKA
The Adak Naval Air Station near the western
end of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, is a
great example of innovative redevelopment
of a former Superfund site that also serves
Native Americans.
Founded in the early 1940s, the air station
on Adak Island served as a key operations
and supply outpost for the U.S. military forces
fighting the Japanese in World War II. The
station continued to serve as a vital naval
base during the Cold War. With the end of
the Cold War and subsequent downsizing of
the military, the site was directed to close as
a result of the Base Realignment and Clo-
sure Act in 1995 (BRAG).
Over 40 years of operation led to large
amounts of hazardous waste being depos-
ited in several areas of the island. In the late
1980s, the Navy identified several areas of
hazardous waste contamination and the site
was put on the NPL in 1994. The Navy com-
pleted more than 20 removal actions, includ-
ing the removal of hundreds of underground
storage tanks.
Since the cleanup, authority over the site has
been transferred from the Navy to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wild-
life Service then traded a large part of the
property to the Aleut Corporation, a native
Alaskan-owned company whose mission is
to promote economic redevelopment of the
area. Some of the services the company is
promoting include a multi-million dollar air-
port and port facilities that can support a wide
variety of vessels including research ships,
station work vessels, cruise ships, factory
trawlers, and fishing boats. The Aleut Corpo-
ration is also promoting Adak as a tourist
center inviting guests to experience the wild-
life on the island while enjoying the benefits
of accommodation and fine dining on the
former naval site.
the community better understand complex site-related techni-
cal information.
At the Southern Shipbuilding site in Slidell, Louisiana, EPA es-
tablished both a TAG and a GAG empowering the community to
take an active role in response action planning. This allowed EPA
to implement a creative, community-based approach which resulted
in an efficient cleanup catering to the needs of the residents of
Slidell.
EPA also creates new opportunities for community input on the
individual level by utilizing tools such as forums and web sites.
Developing Partnerships
To achieve success and promote public participation, EPA works
with communities, local businesses, large corporations, and State,
local, and Tribal governments in the form of partnerships.
EPA, through its State and Tribal Enhanced Role Initiative, de-
veloped a comprehensive plan to implement equitable sharing of
Superfund program responsibilities with interested and capable
States and Tribes, resulting in quicker cleanup of more sites. In
Mississippi, EPA has entered into a pilot program partnering with
a band of Choctaw Native Americans. The pilot supports Tribal
efforts in building a greater Superfund capacity with respect to
emergency preparedness and response. Through the pilot, the
Tribe will learn how to effectively respond to oil and hazardous
substance spills and perform environmental assessments at po-
tential waste sites on Tribal lands.
At the Re-Solve, Inc. Superfund site in Dartmouth, Massachusetts,
EPA has found an innovative way to promote local community
involvement by implementing an important post-cleanup fish moni-
toring program. EPA created the Cornell Pond Annual Fishing
Derby to help collect various fish species for PCB analysis as part
of the long-term monitoring program. It also reminds local
fishermen that a Massachusetts Department of Public Health
fish advisory covering local waters is in effect. The annual fish-
ing derby is just one of the creative ways that EPA •works with
partners and local communities to solve problems caused by
hazardous waste.
The Superfund Jobs Training Initiative (Super JTI) is another
example of an outreach initiative, creating local economic benefits
from site cleanup in disadvantaged areas. SuperJTI, in conjunction
with the Brownfields Job Training and Development Demonstra-
tion Pilot Program, promotes the employment of trainees at
cleanup projects.
H
24
-------
Super fund: 20 Tears of Protecting Hum/in Henltk and the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
At the NL Industries-Teracorp Superfund site-in Granite City, Illi-
nois, EPA worked with a diverse team of partners including DePaul
University in Chicago, Belleville Area Community College, the
Venice Lincoln Technical Center, and the Army Corps of Engi-
neers to provide environmental job training in life skills, technical
environmental practices, and a regulatory overview for 27 area resi-
dents. Soon after completing the training, 20 students were hired
as recovery and field technicians, and for construction.
ENHANCING CLEANUP EFFECTIVENESS
AND CONSISTENCY
EPA has initiated several ongoing reforms to ensure that clean-
ups are cost-effective and reflect the most recent advances in
science and technology. Partially because of these reforms, three
times as many Superfund sites have been cleaned up in the past
seven years than in all the prior years of the program combined.
Some of the more significant advances in cleanup effectiveness
and consistency are described below.
Implementing Technological Innovations
SARA established a preference for treatment of hazardous
wastes and created a demand for alternatives to land disposal.
New innovative treatment technologies grew from this demand
to provide more permanent, less costly solutions, for dealing
with contaminated materials.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program
was established to meet this increased demand for alternative tech-
nologies. The SITE Program has provided demonstrations of new
technologies at particular sites, resulting in average cost savings of
over 70 percent per site. The total cost savings for innovative
treatment as opposed to conventional treatment is estimated at
$2.1 billion.
Superfund's Technology Innovation Office works to break down
barriers to using new technologies by providing a wealth of tech-
nical information, including:
• A free monthly e-mail service newsletter which reaches over
9,500 cleanup professionals;
• Traditional classroom and Internet-based seminars, which
reached over 3,000 site managers in 1999; and
• An online database, which provides information on more
than 500 assessment and cleanup technologies.
De-watering at Velsicol Chemical Corp. site in Michigan
AN EXAMPLE OF INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY AND COST
SAVINGS IN INDIANA
At the Seymour Recycling site in Indiana,
bioremediation, an innovative technology,
resulted in significant cost savings. During
actions, to remove the immediate threat
posed by the site, EPA discovered that bac-
teria were naturally aiding in the remediation
of soils on-site. The remedial design accom-
modated this discovery by relocating a
planned ground water treatment works one-
third of a mile_downslope to utilize the
bioremedial activities occurring naturally in
the soil. By taking advantage of this natural
process, EPA could construct a smaller
jround water treatment facility, which re-
zsuited in substantial savings.
Construction of protective cap at Tulalip Landfill site in
Washington
25
-------
Supcrfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
SOME INNOVATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES Now USED AT
SUPERFUND SITES
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION removes con-
taminant vapors from soil (without having to
dig it up) through the use of vacuum extrac-
tion wells placed in the ground. Contaminants
are collected for further treatment.
AIR SPARGING injects air into the ground
below the contaminated area, forming
bubbles that rise and carry trapped and dis-
solved contaminants to the surface where they
are captured by a soil vapor extraction sys-
tem.
BIOREMEDIATION uses microorganisms,
such as bacteria in engineered processes,
to break down organic contaminants into
harmless substances.
THERMAL DESORPTION heats soil at
relatively low temperatures to vaporize con-
taminants with low boiling points. Vaporized
contaminants then are captured and re-
moved for further treatment or destruction.
SOIL WASHING uses water or a washing
solution and mechanical processes to scrub
excavated soils and remove hazardous con-
taminants.
CHEMICAL DEHALOGENATION converts
contaminants that contain halogens (e.g.,
chlorine and fluorine) to less toxic sub-
stances through controlled chemical reac-
tions that remove or replace halogen atoms.
SOLVENT EXTRACTION separates haz-
ardous organic contaminants from oily-type
wastes, soils, sludges, and sediments, re-
ducing the volume of hazardous waste that
must be treated.
IN SITU SOIL FLUSHING floods contami-
nated soils beneath the ground surface with
a solution that flushes the contaminants to
an area where they can be extracted.
EPA has •worked to form several partnerships to improve the
coordination of research and development efforts between
academia, private industry, and the Federal government. They
include: an industry/government partnership to find innovative
solutions to high priority problems; a petroleum refinery partner-
ship for improved solutions for ground water contamination; a
partnership with State dry cleaners cleanup programs; and an in-
teragency partnership to collaborate across the Federal government
on technology demonstrations and evaluations.
EPA also promotes the research and development of innovative
technologies by sharing the risk with PRPs who select remedies
employing low-cost, high performance technologies. EPA will
"underwrite" these innovative approaches by agreeing to reim-
burse up to 50 percent of the cost if the innovative remedy fails
and a subsequent remedy is required.
These risk-sharing agreements work. At the Douglassville Dis-
posal Site in Pennsylvania, EPA amended an incineration remedy
to a chemical dehalogenation remedy using lime-based stabiliza-
tion. The use of this innovative technology resulted in savings of
$36 million.
Reducing Time and Cost Through Presumptive
Remedies
Seeking to improve consistency and to streamline cleanups, EPA
implemented the use of presumptive remedies. Presumptive
remedies provide guidance on how to address certain recurring
situations at sites, thereby standardizing the response.
Presumptive remedies have been developed for the following
four types of sites:
• Municipal landfills;
• Volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in soils;
• Wood Greater sites; and
• Contaminated ground water.
At the South Indian Bend Wash site in Arizona, presumptive
remedies increased consistency in decision making by taking ad-
vantage of lessons learned at similar sites and allowing a speedup
of the site evaluation process. A study conducted by EPA's
Office of the Inspector General noted efficiency, economy,
consistency, and quality as some of the benefits of presumptive
remedy use at the South Indian Bend Wash site.
4»
•
-------
Superfiind: 20 Tears of Protecting Hum/in Health md the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
Reviewing and Updating Cleanup Decisions
EPA has instituted a number of procedures to make sure that the
best, and most up-to-date, information is used in deciding a
cleanup remedy.
For example, proposed remedies are analyzed by a peer review
group to make certain that they are cost-effective, consistent with
Superfund law and regulations, and protective of human health
and the environment. Such reviews from 1995 through 1999
resulted in total savings of over $70 million, and a savings of $27
million in 1999 alone.
These reviews continue even after a cleanup has started. Remedy
decisions are updated to bring them in line with current science
and technology, or reflect new information about a site. Such
updates have occurred at 300 sites, producing cost savings of
$1.5 billion.
STREAMLINING THE ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS AND OPTIMIZING FAIRNESS
EPA is dedicated to "Enforcement First." Encouraging PKPs to
enter into cooperative cleanup settlements has reduced the need
for litigation and has minimized transaction costs for both EPA
and the PRPs.
EPA has taken significant steps to reduce litigation, promote ear-
lier settlements, and optimize fairness concerns. By streamlining
the enforcement process, EPA is able to reach settlement more
quickly on terms that are considered more fair to the responsible
parties. This streamlined process allows both EPA and the PRPs
to move quickly to clean up sites, and to increase the pace at
which contaminated properties are returned to productive use.
Since 1992, responsible parties have performed over 70 percent
of the new cleanup work at Superfund sites. And over the life of
the Superfund program, EPA has reached settlements with pri-
vate parties valued at over $18 billion.
EPA is making full use of its enforcement discretion to encour-
age settlements that are fair to all parties. Some of the tools that
EPA uses to achieve more efficient and equitable settlements are
described below.
Resolving Disputes Outside of Court
Some of the most complex and contested cases can be settled
using an outside mediator — allowing all the parties to spend their
PREVENTING POLLUTION WITH
"GREEN CHEMISTRY"
If there are no hazardous substances, there
__are no potentially hazardous releases. Stop-
ping hazardous substances from being cre-
ated in the first place is the goal of "green
chemistry."
Green chemistry, or environmentally benign
chemistry, is focused on processes and prod-
ucts that reduce or eliminate the use and gen-
eration of hazardous substances. Major in-
terest in green chemistry began with the pas-
sage of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990,
and gained momentum in 1991 as it became
the forma) focus of an EPA program.
"When the Pollution Prevention Act was passed
by Congress in 1990, it was the first act to fo-
cus on pollution prevention rather than treat-
ment and abatement. This represented a fun-
damental change from the government regu-
latory approach, dictating methods of deal-
ing with pollutants that had been typical of the
previous decade. The Act established pollu-
tion prevention as national policy, encourag-
ing industries and academics to devise novel
technologies and processes that avoided the
formation and/or use of hazardous sub-
stances.
In 1991, EPA created the Green Chemistry Pro-
gram. The Green Chemistry Program is a non-
regulatory program fostering research, devel-
opment, and implementation of innovative
chemical technologies that prevent pollution
in a scientifically sound and cost-effective man-
ner. The program works with many partners
in industry, academia, other government agen-
cies, scientific societies, trade organizations,
national laboratories, and research centers to
promote pollution prevention through green
chemistry.
Pollution prevention through green chemistry
is gaining widespread attention thanks to pub-
lic/private partnerships. New green chemis-
try programs now provide incentives for the
private sector to develop innovative solutions
to production. The chemical industry is
changing its face through advances in green
technology, while at the same time utilizing
the benefits of significant reductions in regu-
lation compliance costs, liability and cleanup
costs, and disposal and on-site storage costs.
27
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
$1 BILLION SETTLEMENT
REACHED AT IRON MOUNTAIN
MINE SITE
Redding, California (October 19, 2000) —
The United States and the State of California
announced a settlement with Aventis Crop
Sciences USA, inc. to fund future cleanup
costs that could approach $1 billion at the
Iron Mountain Mine site. The settlement is
one of the largest to be reached with a single
private party in the history of the Superfund
program. The agreement will ensure long-
term control of more than 95 percent of the
releases from the site.
The 4,400-acre site, which operated from the
1860s through 1963, is historically the larg-
est point source of toxic metals in the coun-
try, and the source of the most acidic mine
drainage in the world. Prior to remediation,
the mine discharged an average of a ton of
toxic metals a day into the Upper Sacra-
mento River, a critical salmon spawning
habitat and central feature in the State's
water system. Approximately 70,000 people
used surface water within 3 miles of the site
as their source of drinking water.
In 1983, EPA listed the site on the NPL at the
State's request. Since then, numerous Fed-
eral and State agencies have worked together
on this site which has been addressed in six
stages starting with a series of emergency
actions. In 1994, a high density sludge treat-
ment plant was installed that removes 99.99
percent of metals from the site's toxic runoff.
The settlement pays for natural resource res-
toration projects, provides for operation and
maintenance for 30 years, and guarantees
additional funding for site costs incurred after
the year 2030.
time and resources cleaning up sites rather than litigating cases in
court.
For example, at the Landfill & Resource Recovery site in Rhode
Island, the parties included 18 PRPs, along with the United States
and the State of Rhode Island Both the Federal and State claims
were resolved with the help of a Federal district court judge with
a settlement that reimbursed the government for 97 percent of
its expected costs. The mediated settlement also provided funds
to purchase wetlands to expand the Blackstone River Valley
National Heritage Center.
At the Auburn Road Landfill site in New Hampshire, a voluntary
mediation led to a consent decree that resolved the government's
claims against 31 PRPs. The settlers agreed to perform the rem-
edy and to reimburse the United States for its past cleanup costs
and future oversight costs. In addition, the settlers are reimburs-
ing the State of New Hampshire and the Town of Londonderry
for past cleanup costs and future oversight costs.
Protecting the "Little Guy"
Some Superfund sites have hundreds of PRPs, including small
companies (or even individuals) who contributed only a minor
portion of the waste. These small contributors may be dragged
into burdensome litigation by the PRPs which were primarily
responsible for the contamination. EPA attempts to identify and
resolve the' liability of these small party contributors early in the
process, leading to de micromis and de minimis settlements.
A de micromis party is someone whose contribution of waste is
minimal. In fact, the costs of hiring a lawyer, and negotiating a
settlement, would dwarf any amount the party could reasonably
be expected to contribute to cleanup costs. Many times, the PRPs
•who contributed a major portion of the waste to a site sue the de
micromis parties for contribution. EPA enters into a de micromis
settlement with these parties to protect them from such suits.
For example, 47 homeowners who lived around the Raymark
Industries site in Connecticut could be seen as de micromis par-
ties since they only contributed household wastes to the site. EPA
and the State of Connecticut protected these homeowners from
being sued by entering into a settlement where each homeowner
paid $1 to be protected from "third party" law suits brought by
the major contributors.
A de mmimispaity has contributed more waste than a de micromis
party, but the amount is still insignificant when compared with
what has been contributed by some of the major PRPs - for
example, less than one percent of the waste at a site. With de
u
28
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
minimis parties, EPA has placed a priority on achieving a quick,
efficient resolution of their liability to protect them from bur-
densome litigation.
At the Tulalip Landfill in Washington, EPA settled with 207 de
minimispax&es very early in the process, resulting in the recovery
of approximately $10 million and the identification of PRPs who
made major contributions of waste to the site. At the Cherokee
Oil Resources site in North Carolina, EPA entered into an early
de minimis settlement with over 200 small contributors. Both the
de minim&and the major contributors agreed not to sue over 1,000
de micromis parties.
EPA gets the "little guys out" of the Superfund enforcement.
Overthe years, 460 ^mzrarnKsettlements have beenreached with
nearly 23,000 small waste contributors.
Paying for the "Orphan Share"
Many times, wastes have been contributed to sites by companies
that are now insolvent. The share of cleanup liability attributable
to such parties is sometimes referred to as the "orphan share."
EPA's orphan share policy provides money from the Trust Fund
to reduce the liability of PRPs that agree to perform cleanups.
Allowing the Trust Fund (rather than PRPs) to pay for orphan
shares enhances fairness and creates a major incentive for the
PRPs to perform cleanups and to settle claims without litigation
- thereby decreasing the overall costs of the cleanup.
Recent EPA offers for orphan share compensation have expedited
cleanups at the Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill in California and
the Interstate Lead Company Superfund Site in Alabama. Through
October 2000, EPA has offered approximately $190 million in or-
phan share compensation at 119 sites.
Removing Legal Barriers to Economic Development
One of the biggest success stories of the Superfund program has
been the return of hundreds of formerly contaminated proper-
ties to productive use. Areas that were once written off as toxic
eyesores have been transformed into office buildings, recreational
centers, •wildlife habitats, and industrial plants.
These transformations will not take place unless certain legal
issues are addressed first. Many real estate firms are afraid to
develop a Superfund site because of the possibility that the firm
could be found liable for the enormous costs of the cleanup -
even for conditions that existed before anyone at the firm be-
came involved with the site.
SUCCESSFUL ENFORCEMENT AT
:THE BROS SITE IN NEW JERSEY
EPA's response to the Bridgeport Rental and
Oil Services (BROS) site in Bridgeport, New
Jersey is recognized as one of the greatest
""achievements of the Superfund program.
The cleanup of this former waste oil storage
and recovery facility proved to be one of the
most technically challenging in the program's
history and was galvanized by an enforce-
ment settlement valued at $222 million. This
represents one of the largest, most complex
settlements in Superfund history.
The BROS site is a 30-acre property which is
located approximately one mile east of the
Town of Bridgeport and two miles south of
; the Delaware River, The site houses wastes
including volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
and heavy metals (lead, cadmium, chro-
mium, barium) accumulated during opera-
tion from 1950 through the late 1970s. Resi-
dents dependent on ground water were at
risk of exposure. Pollution migrating from the
site also threatened an ecologically sensitive
wetland area. In 1979, the volatility of the
site became realized as chemical fire swept
across the area, rocketing cylinders through
the air and engulfing the site in a black toxic
cloud.
Enforcement began with an extensive discov-
ery effort, resulting in a voluminous amount
of deposition testimony which brought over
90 private parties to the negotiating table.
EPA, in the spirit of the Superfund Reform
initiatives, agreed to accept less than full re-
covery of its past costs and entered into a
risk-sharing arrangement. Parties used non-
jbinding mediation, an alternative dispute
resolution mechanism, to assist them in the
negotiations which resulted in this historic
settlement. The settlement covered approxi-
mately 70 percent of the cleanup costs and
required the private companies to complete
the remaining cleanup of the Site's ground
water and wetlands.
29
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
1 homes built at Ft. Wayne, Indiana Brownfields site
One way the Federal government addresses these concerns is
by entering into Prospective Purchaser Agreements (PPAs) with
potential buyers of contaminated property. A PPA is an agree-
ment where EPA conditionally releases a buyer from Superfund
liability for contamination that existed before the buyer began
work on the site. The PPA will not provide protection if the
buyer creates any new contamination or makes existing site con-
ditions worse.
In return for this conditional release from Superfund liability, the
buyer agrees to help EPA with its mission of protecting human
health and the environment. The PPA requires the buyer to: avoid
any activities that "would disturb the cleanup; provide EPA with
access to the site so EPA can monitor the success of the cleanup;
and, in many cases, help perform, or pay for, the cleanup itself.
In California, the Federal government entered into a PPA with
a local real estate developer that allowed the Fairchild Semicon-
ductor site to be transformed into, the World Headquarters of
Netscape Communications. Another successful PPA will allow
soccer fields to be built over the cleaned up Avtex Fibers site in
Virginia.
ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC
REDEVELOPMENT
Many people have the feeling that if an area becomes contami-
nated with toxic waste, it will be a wasteland forever. It may be
cleaned up, it may be safe, but the best that can happen after the
label of environmental contamination is placed on the property
is for it to be fenced off, becoming a permanent economic blem-
ish on a community.
But that perception is incorrect. Hundreds of contaminated
properties have been cleaned up and turned into office parks,
industrial centers, shopping centers, residential areas, tourist cen-
ters, and wetlands. Sites that were once abandoned or underused
have now become valuable community resources. Areas that once
helped to drag the local economy down are now generating new
tax revenue, creating jobs and serving as catalysts for broader
revitalization.
Successful reuse of once-contaminated properties is happening
all over the country. Communities and EPA; developers and State
officials; local political leaders and large corporations - all are
joining together as partners to make reuse happen.
3O
-------
Superfiind: 20 Tears of Protecting Hnmnn Health and the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
Returning "Bnnvnjwlds" to Productive Community Use
"Brownfields" are formally defined as abandoned, idled or
underused industrial and commercial properties where expan-
sion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived envi-
ronmental contamination.
Examples include abandoned gas stations, dry cleaners, and photo
labs. Brownfields can also encompass much larger facilities like
underused shipping terminals or an industrial plant that has dosed
its doors.
Often in the past, these urban or rural properties were idle after
their industrial or commercial uses. They existed as eyesores to
the community and drains on the local economy. Developers did
not want to go near them, so they built the new gas station (or
parking lot or office building) on some undeveloped lot - possibly
in suburban or rural areas. Such actions contributed to sprawl
and to the slow disappearance of "greenfield" areas.
EPA announced the Brownfields Initiative in 1993 to clean up
abandoned, contaminated sites and restore them to productive
community use. The benefits of successful brownfields devel-
opment go far beyond the immediate improvement of public
health and environment. Many of the neighborhoods surround-
ing brownfields were traditionally stable, working class areas that
have deteriorated since the departure of the industries that sus-
tained them. Some of, the Nation's highest concentrations of
poverty, crime, and other social problems are located in areas close
to brownfields. Redevelopment can help remove blightfrom these
neighborhoods and generate jobs and income. Brownfields
projects can also serve as catalysts for the revival of older com-
munities and neighborhoods.
The Brownfields Initiative has achieved these successes through
four general programs:
• Providing grants for brownfields assessment and cleanup
pilots;
• Clarifying liability and cleanup issues;
• Building partnerships and outreach among Federal agen-
cies, States, municipalities, and communities; and
• Fostering local job development and training initiatives.
Since 1993, the Brownfields Initiative has awarded over 500 grants
to communities nationwide, totaling over $164 million. These grants
have resulted in the creation of over 7,000 new jobs and have le-
veraged over $2.3 billion in private investment. According to a
study done by the Conference of Urban Economic Development,
BRINGING DEVELOPMENT TO A
BROWNFIELD IN CONNECTICUT
Bridgeport, Connecticut has been plagued
with economic hardship due, in large part, to
the departure of several industrial operations
in the 1980s. Several of these former indus-
trial properties which remain abandoned -
often viewed as eyesores detracting from
property values - have been the focus of city
officials in recent years.
The former Jenkins Valve Company site, lo-
cated at the city's main gateway, has been
fueling a growing urban renewal effort in
Bridgeport^Through innovative fund-raising
and a $200^000 EPA Brownfields Assessment
Pilot Initiative grant, the City of Bridgeport
identified the property as a priority
Brownfields site and performed an evalua-
tion of the property exploring site redeve-
lopment. Based on this evaluation, the Zurich
Re Corporation invested $11 million to clean
up and redevelop the site. Both the State and
the City contributed a total of $3 million for
site redevelopment.
The result is the state-of-the-art Harbor Yard
sports complex featuring a new 5,500-seat mi-
nor league ballpark, the home of the Bridge-
port Bluefish. There are also plans fora sports
arena and a new museum. The complex is a
testimony to the commitment of EPA, the
State, the City, the business community, and
the residents of Bridgeport to revitalize a once-
forsaken area with new development.
Brownfields reuse in Bridgeport, Connecticut
31
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
SOME OF THE MAJOR
BROWNFIELDS PROGRAMS
ASSESSMENT DEMONSTRATION PI-
LOTS - These grants do not pay for cleanup,
but provide seed money for environmental
site assessment and planning that allows
communities to attract investments for revi-
talization and sustainable growth. EPA has
awarded 362 pilots, each funded up to
$200,000 over two years.
NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP AND SHOW-
CASE COMMUNITIES - Designated show-
case communities work with local and State
officials to develop local solutions to clean up
and redevelop brownfields. These communi-
ties serve as national models for other com-
munities with similar issues. The first round
of 16 communities was announced in 1998
and has leveraged more than $900 million
for cleanup and economic development. EPA
announced 12 additional showcase commu-
nities in October 2000.
BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP REVOLVING
LOAN FUND (BCRLF) - BCRLF bridges the
gap between environmental assessment and
development of brownfields properties by pro-
viding capital to fund cleanup efforts. EPA has
awarded 104 pilots totaling $64.8 million.
JOB TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEMONSTRATION PILOT PROGRAM -
Public and private institutions can receive
grants of up to $200,000 over two years to
create job opportunities for residents living
near brownfields sites and to ensure well-
trained workers for cleanup and redevelop-
ment activities. EPA has provided $6.9 mil-
lion in grants to 37 communities.
Netscape Headquarters on former Faircbild
Semiconductor site in California
almost $2.50 of private investment has been leveraged for every $1
invested by Federal, State, and local governments.
There have been many notable Brownfields successes. One
prominent success occurred in Dallas, Texas. The city initially
received a $200,000 Brownfields grant from the Federal govern-
ment and has leveraged over $840 million in public and private
development funds. This money has been used to clean up and
redevelop 15 sites and reclaim more than 1,000 acres of
brownfields. Residents now benefit from new low-income hous-
ing developments, a city recreation facility, shopping centers, an
environmental training and technology center, and hundreds of
new jobs.
On October 12, 2000, the Brownfields Initiative was recognized
by the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Govern-
ment and Council for Excellence in Government with their In-
novations in Government Award. This is the highest award
given to government programs that have served the public and
have developed innovative approaches to addressing important
public challenges.
Reusing Superfund Sites
The Superfund Redevelopment Initiative (SRI) was announced
in 1999, but the effort to return Superfund sites to productive
use has been in place for a number of years. Building on the
Superfund Reforms and the Brownfields Initiative, EPA has put
in place a coordinated national program to make certain that com-
munities have the tools and information needed to realize the
potential of reusing Superfund sites.
One recent success story is the Fairchild Semiconductor site in
California, •which now hosts the World Headquarters of
Netscape Communications. The 1,600 high-tech executives and
employees who work at this once-vacant property earn more
than $153 million annually - infusing over $122 million of per-
sonal spending into the economy and providing more than $11
million in local and State taxes. This now-valuable Silicon Val-
ley property is also the current or future home of major firms
like America Online, Veritas Software, Hewlett-Packard, and
KPMG Peat Marwick.
The commercial redevelopment of the former Fairchild Semi-
conductor site is just one part of a larger plan to link the nearby
residential community with the high-tech job center that now
occupies the former Superfund site. Plans are underway to build
light rail stations, restaurants, parks, biking trails, and open spaces.
32
-------
Superfund: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health und the Environment
MAKING THE PROGRAM FASTER, FAIRER, AND MORE EFFICIENT
A very different example is provided by the
Chisman Creek site in Virginia, which has been
transformed into a sports park containing two
lighted Softball fields, four soccer fields, two
ponds, and the County's Memorial Tree Grove.
The sports park supports a 42-team softball
league in the summer, and a community youth
soccer program in the fall.
There have been more than 190 such success
stories at Superfund sites in all areas of the coun-
try, over 150 of them involving totally new uses
for a site.
The keys to successful cleanup and reuse are the
community and the partnerships it can create.
Each community decides how far and how wide
the benefits of reusing a Superfund site wiE ex-
tend. But it is the partnerships that provide
the fuel for success. Successful cleanup and
reuse has required strong relationships between
communities, EPA, local businesses, large cor-
porations, State governments, and local officials.
How SUPERFUND "WORKS" AT ANACONDA
Old Works Golf Course at former Anaconda Smelter site in Montana
In 1997, golfing legend Jack Nicklaus opened the Old Works
Golf Course, which he designed. Praised by Golf Journal as
"world class . . . with 18 fascinating holes," the Old Works
course was built over the cleaned up Anaconda Company
Smelter site in Montana.
Building a world class golf course over a shut-down copper
mine was the result of a successful partnership between
Nicklaus, EPA, the State of Montana, the Anaconda commu-
nity, the local government, and the Atlantic Richfield Com-
pany (ARCO), the potentially responsible party.
EPA entered into a consent decree with ARCO to implement
the cleanup remedy. Concerned citizens of Anaconda used a
TAG to review EPA studies and relay their findings to the rest
of the community. EPA, the State, the community, and ARCO
worked together to develop a cost-effective re-vegetation plan
to prevent contamination from spreading. EPA also helped
orchestrate an agreement that transferred ownership of the
golf course from ARCO to the County government, including
a condition that required revenues be used for the continued
economic growth of the Anaconda area.
At Anaconda, the Superfund reforms came together, not only
to clean up the site, but to transform it for the community's
economic betterment. When the smelter shut down, the com-
munity was worried that Anaconda would turn into a ghost
town. Now tourists come from miles around to play golf - and
many come back when they discover that the area also offers
excellent skiing, fishing, hiking, and hunting.
Playing softball at former Chisman Creek site in Virginia
33
-------
-------
Supcrfund: 20 Years of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF EARTH DAY
SUPERFUND'S SUCCESSES ON ITS 2O™ ANNIVERSARY
* Over 6,400 removal actions have
been taken to reduce immediate
threats.
• 757 Superfund sites have had all
cleanup construction completed.
• Of the 1,450 final NPL sites: 219 are
deleted; and over 1,200 have all final
cleanup plans approved.
• Of the 59 sites proposed for listing
zon the NPL, 28 have had, or are
undergoing, some cleanup.
•Over 650 Five-Year Reviews have been com-
pleted to ensure long-term effectiveness of
cleanup remedies.
• Since 1992, responsible parties performed over
70 percent of all new cleanups at NPL sites.
• Over the life of the Superfund program, the
estimated value of private party settlements is
$18 billion.
>! Over 460 de minimi's settlements have been
reached - allowing 22,800 small waste contribu-
tors relief from the burdens of Superfund
litigation.
In 1990, the first family moved into a home at Love Canal since
the area was evacuated in 1978.
This trend continued through the next decade. By 1998, 232
homes had been renovated and sold, and there was a waiting list
for additional families to move into the area.
The site that prompted Congress to enact the Superfund legisla-
tion is now seen as a desirable place to live once again. Love
Canal has been cleaned up. It awaits deletion from the NPL,
which is expected in 2001.
MEETING THE CHALLENGE
By the time the Nation came together to celebrate the first Earth
Day in 1970, it had developed an understanding that, to ensure a
good quality of life for ourselves and our children, we must act as
responsible stewards of the air, water, and land. However, at the
time of first Earth Day, the dangers associated with past indus-
trial activities "were not fully understood.
The events at Love Canal awoke the nation to the consequences
of past practices of the industrial age. Hazardous wastes that
many thought had been appropriately taken care of were re-
emerging into our environment. The discovery of the dangers
resulting from sites like Love Canal presented the Nation with
new challenges.
An entire new program needed to be created to fulfill the Earth
Day goal of achieving a clean and safe environment. However,
35
-------
Sttperfund: 20 Years of Protecting Unman Health anil the Environment
FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF EARTH DAY
RENEWAL OF WATERFRONT
PROPERTY IN NEW YORK
In the City of Glen Cove, New York, 146 acres
of under-used, contaminated land lay idle
along the city's waterfront district. This wa-
terfront area in Glen Cove has been the hub
of industrial activity since the mid-1800s.
Many heavy industrial and manufacturing
uses have since ceased, vacating many prop-
erties. Because of liability concerns associ-
ated with the Superfund law, redevelopment
of this prime real estate had not occurred.
However in 1993, with the launching of the
Brownfields Initiative, new innovative ap-
proaches provided new hope for the future
of this property, and hundreds like it around
the country.
With the aid of Federal money facilitating re-
use, the City of Glen Cove is cleaning up and
redeveloping this brownfields site. Important
partnerships among Federal, State, and lo-
cal agencies (in collaboration with environ-
mental, business, and community groups)
have directed redevelopment. It is estimated
that, once redevelopment is complete, Glen
Cove's waterfront brownfields will result in
1,700 new, full-time jobs at all skill levels, of-
fering new employment opportunities to low-
and moderate-income residents. New busi-
nesses on the redeveloped sites are expected
to gross $200 million in annual sales, with
annual tax yields of nearly $10 million.
New commercial opportunities in Massachusetts
by the close of Superfund's first decade, it became clear that the
goal could not be achieved simply by laws and regulations - or by
the Federal government alone. Instead, partnerships needed to
be formed. EPA reached out to States, Tribes, communities, and
industry to forge stronger relationships.
EPA facilitated these partnerships through reform of existing
programs and creation of new innovative ones. The goals of
protecting human health and the environment remained the same,
but the means were reinvented. Today, Superfund is more flexible,
more effective, more sensible, and more affordable - seeking to
achieve the best environmental results for the least cost.
But the proof of Superfund's success is found in our backyards.
Creating Economic Opportunities in Massachusetts
The Industri-Plex site in Woburn, Massachusetts is one illustra-
tion of what can happen when partnerships are formed among
the community, State, EPA, and the private sector. Industri-Plex
is a 245-acre industrial park located 12 miles north of Boston
along the heavily-traveled Interstate-93 corridor. Since 1853, it
had been the home of various chemical manufacturing opera-
tions, including the manufacture of glue from raw animal hides
and chrome-tanned hide wastes. These operations caused the soils
and the ground water to become contaminated with elevated lev-
els of metals, such as arsenic, lead, and chromium.
Industrial activities ceased at the site in 1969, and the property
was sold for development. In the late 1970s, the developer un-
earthed animal hides, which emitted odors that smelled like rotten
eggs. Because of community protest, development activities ceased
at the site in 1980 and the Federal government became involved.
The site was placed on the first NPL in 1983.
Because of innovative thinking and flexibility, a site that was
once the subject of community unrest has been transformed
into a center of community pride. When the Federal govern-
ment settled with the PRPs in 1989, two Trusts were formed
among EPA, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, the City of Woburn, and 24 current and former
landowners. The Trusts facilitated the cleanup of the site and
its eventual redevelopment.
The many partners were committed to making the Industri-Plex
site both safe and economically viable. Lines of communication
were kept open, and ways to resolve normally difficult problems
were found. Today, this former toxic wasteland has been cleaned
up and redeveloped for the following uses:
41
36
-------
Superfand: 20 Tears of Protecting Human Health and, the Environment
FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF EARTH DAY
• Regional Transportation Center - State agencies have
developed a 36-acre transportation facility that can ac-
commodate 2,400 parking spaces for commuter train, ser-
vice into Boston, a Park and Ride bus service, and shuttle
service to Logan Airport.
• Commercial and retail district - A Target department
store has been constructed, along with 750,000 square feet
of office and hotel space.
• Newhighwaylinte-Anewhighwayinterchangebetween
1-93 and 1-95 eases severe regional traffic congestion and
provides access to new businesses. Additionally, the main
thoroughfare through the site has been improved and ex-
tended.
Cleaning up Industri-Plex has been good for the environment,
but it is also a boon to the local economy. The new develop-
ments at Industri-Plex now provide as many as 4,300 permanent
jobs, approximately $147 million in annual income associated with
those jobs, and a $4.6 million potential increase in residential prop-
erty values within two miles of the site.
Creating a New Wildlife Habitat in Ohio
Superfund — combined •with innovation, communication, and
partnerships — can also lead to new environmental habitats.
The 12-acre Bowers Landfill in Circleville, Ohio was first operated
as a pit for gravel excavation, but it was converted to a municipal
solid waste landfill. Later the landfill began accepting industrial
"wastes, including approximately 7,500 tons of chemical waste.
Disposal practices at the Bowers Landfill frequently consisted of
depositing waste directly onto the ground and covering it with
soil. Waste also was burned on-site. In 1980, investigations
determined that contaminants in the landfill were polluting nearby
monitoring wells with volatile organic compounds. In 1983, the
site was added to the first NPL
Partnerships formed quickly once the site was identified as a
national priority. The partners included EPA, the Ohio Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the Ohio Division of Wildlife, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the local community. Each partner
pkyed a crucial role in the planning and design of the cleanup. In
1985, the Bowers Landfill Information Committee was formed, pro-
viding the surrounding community with an opportunity to become
involved with the daily activities of the site. These partnerships
facilitated communication, which in turn fostered numerous posi-
tive economic and social impacts for the local community.
Cleanup creates wetlands at Bowers Landfill
37
-------
Superfund: 20 Years of Protecting Human Health and the Environment
FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF EARTH DAY
NEW THREATS POSED BY
TOXJC WASTE SITES CONTINUE
TO BE DISCOVERED
In 1996, the State of New Jersey responded
to a discharge of an unknown liquid in a hous-
ing development. Subsequent investigations
revealed elevated levels of creosote seeping
into the basements of homes. New Jersey
and EPA began an investigation of the site,
which found that the contamination was ex-
tensive. In 1998, responsibility of the site was
transferred from the State to EPA.
EPA conducted extensive soil sampling and
found that the levels of carcinogenic materi-
als were at unacceptable levels for at least
19 homes. EPA initiated a Removal Action to
reduce the threat of contamination for these
19 families. In 1999, the Federal Creosote
Site was added to the NPL.
EPA's cleanup requires the permanent relo-
cation of residents from an estimated two
dozen properties. The selected remedy also
includes the excavation of contaminated soils
for thermal treatment and disposal.
Twenty years after the passage of CERCLA,
the Federal Creosote Site demonstrates that
the threats first given wide publicity by Love
Canal continue to the present day. The big
difference is that now there is a strong
Superfund program to help address these
threats before they become major dangers.
Cleanup of the Bowers Landfill required many creative innova-
tions. For example, EPA and the State of Ohio decided that they
needed to do something to protect the newly-capped landfill from
floodwaters that frequently inundate the land along the Scioto River.
The site's location near the river made it ideal for creating wetlands.
This innovative and cost-effective use of the land not only con-
trols flooding, but benefits the surrounding ecosystem. The
wetlands are now flourishing, providing a safe habitat for nu-
merous species of plants, birds, and other wildlife.
FACING NEW CHALLENGES
Wildlife habitats. Transportation centers and shopping malls.
These are the just some of the successes of Superfund.
As Superfund enters its third decade, EPA faces four central
challenges:
• The Agency will continue the cleanup of NPL sites, as "well
as address immediate contamination problems through
Removal Actions across the country;
• EPA will continue to ensure that cleanup remedies remain
protective of human health and the environment for years
to come;
• As new sites are identified, EPA "will share responsibility
with States, Tribes, and other stakeholders to work with
communities and PRPs to get these sites cleaned up effi-
ciently; and
• The Agency will continue to serve as a catalyst to pro-
mote redevelopment at both brownfields and former
Superfund sites.
Because of Superfund, sites that were once dangerous have been
made safe. Land that was once desolate has been restored to
productive use for communities across America. And new toxic
•waste sites are prevented from occurring in the first place by the
presence of Superfund.
This is Superfund on its 20* anniversary. Now entering its third
decade, Superfund will continue its evolution to meet the new
challenges of a clean and safe environment - the promise of
Earth Day.
38
-------
Thanking
OUR FEDERAL. PARTNERS
EPA has primary responsibility for implementing Superfund, but because of the complexity of hazardous waste issues,
the Agency has relied on the respective strengths of the following Federal partners to carry out its mission of protecting
human health and the environment:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) contributes to the understanding of the negative health
effects associated with exposure to hazardous substances, identi-
fies parties at risk of exposure, and intervenes to protect communi-
ties from exposure. Since ATSDR was established, it has conducted
assessments or consultations at more than 3,000 hazardous waste
sites, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) provides specialized equip-
ment and personnel to assist with the design and construction of
large scale remedial actions at Superfund sites. In addition,
USAGE'S Center of Expertise and its Rapid Response Program pro-
vide nationwide support to Superfund. USAGE has received nearly
5,000 assignments over the last 18 years. http://hq.environmentai.
usace.army.mil
Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for prevent-
ing releases at USDA facilities as well as the efficient management
and cleanup of hazardous materials when releases occur. USDA
has inventoried and characterized over 2,000 sites and completed
over 300 removal actions and other responses, http://www.usda.gov
Department of Defense (DoD) responds to releases and threat-
ened releases at military facilities. The Defense Environmental Res-
toration Program (DERP) has responded at 95 percent of the nearly
28,000 potentially contaminated DoD sites - and cleaned up 62
percent of these sites, http://www.denix.osd.mil
Department of Energy (DOE) ensures cleanup of radioactive,
chemical, and hazardous wastes that were left after 50 years of
nuclear weapons production, and associated research and devel-
opment activities. By the end of 1999, a total of 6,810 releases had
been identified - of which 4,053 were in the assessment phase, 876
were in the cleanup phase, and 1,881 had been completed. Three
DOE sites have been cleaned up and deleted from the NPL http://
www.em.doe.gov
Department of the Interior (DOI) operates programs in support
of EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard for preparedness and response
actions, and performs natural resource damage assessment and
restoration functions during an oil discharge or a release of haz-
ardous materials. DOI is designated as a Natural Resource Trustee
and is also responsible for developing the regulations to deter-
mine the extent of harm to a natural resource, http://www.doi.gov/
indexj.html
Department of Justice (DOJ) represents EPA and other Fed-
eral agencies in judicial actions in Federal Court to enforce the pro-
visions of CERCLA that require PRPs to perform or pay for site
cleanup. DOJ has worked with EPA to transform the Superfund
program by prompting responsible parties to enter into settlements
or voluntarily comply with administrative orders, rather than litigat-
ing with the government. DOJ also represents the Federal trustees
when there is a need to recover damages resulting from injuries to
natural resources, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) provides support to State, Tribal, and local
governments and to the private sector for responding
to releases of hazardous substances. Some of FEMA's
activities include: distributing information; planning for
emergencies; training for emergencies; membership
and participation in the 13 Regional Response Teams;
and the administration of $5 million each year to State
governments and Tribes for hazardous materials
(HAZMAT) training, http://www.fema.gov/pte/carep.htm
National Institute for Environmental Health Sci-
ences (NIEHS) sponsors two major Superfund pro-
grams: the Hazardous Substances Basic Research
and Training Program and the Worker Education and
Training Program. These two programs have success-
fully trained over 800,000 workers across the country
by providing nearly 42,000 classroom and hands-on
training courses that account for over 12 million con-
tact hours of training, http://www.niehs.nih.gov
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (NOAA) acts on behalf of the Secretary of
Commerce as a natural resource trustee. NOAA trust
resources include coastal and marine fisheries, marine
mammals, resources of National Marine Sanctuaries
and Estuarine Research Reserves, tidal wetlands, and
other coastal habitats. Through the Coastal Protec-
tion and Restoration Program, NOAA has worked with
EPA, PRPs, and other Federal, State, and Tribal trust-
ees to initiate cleanup and restoration activities at over
500 sites, ensuring more environmentally protective
remedies and cleaner, healthier coastal habitats, http://
www.noaa.gov
United States Coast Guard (USCG) continuously
maintains facilities for the surveillance of oil discharges
and hazardous substance releases that occur in the
coastal zone. USCG administers the National Response
Center (NRG) which provides a centralized means for
coordinating national response logistics for respond-
ing to releases. NRC also maintains a database of
critical hazardous substance information that can
quickly be provided to responders in order to help
identify a substance and thereby correctly choose an
appropriate response action, http://www.uscg.mil
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ...
on the Superfund program, please consult
www.epa.gov/superfund
or contact William O. Ross
at (703) 603-8798 or ross.william@epa.gov.
-------
------- |