United States Office of SeptemoeM985
•ttnoii r Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
L • ° Agency Washington DC. 20*60
\vcrA Superfund Fact book
Second Edition oooR85io4
September 1985
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicoqo, Illinois 60604
-------
-------
Contents
HOW SUPERFUND WORKS , 1
CERCLA Authorities .... 1
Cleanup Actions ......... 2
Enforcement 3
Current Budget . 4
Proposed Funding Levels . 5
Community Relations 5
Progress To Date ...6
CHART: HOW SITE DECISIONS ARE MADE 9
1935 TESTIMONY OF LEE M. THOMAS on Reauthorizing
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
February 25 * 11
April 25 50
LIST OF EMERGENCY SITES CLEANED UP BY
SUPERFUND PROGRAM 57
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST 77
LEE THOMAS LETTERS TO SENATOR STAFFORD AND
CONGRESSMAN DINGELL 99
LIST OF DELAYED ACTION SITES . 105
EPA REGIONAL PRESS CONTACTS 109
-------
Contact Gwen Brown at 202/382-4355
for single copies of this handbook
-------
SUPERFUND FACTBOOK
HOW SUPERFUND WORKS
Among the eight major laws administered by EPA are two
designed to manage hazardous waste: the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), under which EPA and the states regulate
currently produced wastes, and the Comprehensive Environmental
Response/ Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), better known
as the Superfund, which enables EPA and the States to clean up
sites where hazardous wastes were dumped prior to the passage
of RCRA in 1976.
CERCLA Authorities
CERCLA was enacted by Congress in 1980 to address environmental
and public health problems caused by the uncontrolled handling and
disposal of hazardous substances. It established the Hazardous
Substance Trust Fund and grants EPA three distinct authorities:
•• To take short-term and emergency steps to address
immediate hazards to public health and the environ-
ment caused by uncontrolled hazardous substances.
Any site posing an immediate threat is eligible.
• To undertake long-term actions to correct more
. extensive threats to human health and the environ-
ment as a result of improper management of hazardous
materials. For long-term cleanup eligibility a
site must be placed on the roster of the nation's
most hazardous waste sites—the National Priorities
List (NPL).
• To require responsible parties (site owners and
operators or waste generators) to clean up hazardous
waste sites, including NPL sites, by taking enforce-
ment action against them when they can be identified.
-1-
-------
Cleanup Actions
A site can be nominated for action by anyone: an individual
citizen, an activist group, a corporation, an EPA regional office
or any level of government.
Short-term actions, or "removals", can be triggered by
burning, leakage or explosion of hazardous substances, imminent
contamination of human or animal food chains, pollution of a
drinking-water supply—any immediate or incipient threat to
public health or the environment.
Circumstances may require nothing more than erecting a
security fence, isolating a source from the elements with an
impervious cover and testing samples of soil or water. In other
cases, leaking barrels or contaminated soil may have to be
removed. Sometimes it may be necessary to provide alternate
water supplies or even evacuate nearby residents. ,
Through July 1985, EPA initiated emergency actions at 452
sites. At some 388 sites, action has been completed, and of
these 289, including two NPL sites, were totally detoxified and
required no further action. The other 99 sites have been
controlled or contained pending long-term action. EPA expects
to conduct at least 190 emergency actions in fiscal 1986.
Long-term actions are generally undertaken at complex sites
where more than six months is needed to straighten things away.
Each site is selected according to the degree of risk it presents
to public health or the environment. EPA works closely with the.
states in implementing this authority—evaluating the problem,
-------
designing solutions and conducting the actual cleanup. The
states share responsibility by:
• Assuring EPA that the site will be properly maintained
once cleanup is completed.
• Assuring EPA that an acceptable hazardous waste facility
is available if off-site storage, treatment or disposal
is necessary.
• Sharing in the cost, generally 10 percent for actual _ -
cleanup, excluding planning. If. a state or other
government owned the site at the time of waste disposal,
however, its share will be at least 50 percent of total
costs.
As of September 5, 1985 there were 850 sites on the proposed
and final National Priorities List. Comprehensive engineering
analyses (known as remedial investigation and feasibility studies),
which determine the full facts and best means of proceeding, are
underway at nearly 450 sites.
Enforcement
Enforcement is a major EPA priority under Superfund. The
agency believes that those who create environmental problems
should correct them wherever possible. EPA can obtain cleanup
action by taking the parties to court, reaching an out-of-court
settlement or issuing direct administrative orders where there is
an immediate threat to public health or environment. These
methods conserve funds for those sites where responsible parties
cannot be found or lack the financial resources to do the job.
The agency's first priority, however, is to make sure that
any risks are addressed as quickly as possible. So, if an
immediate threat to public health develops, EPA draws upon Trust
-3-
-------
Fund money to address the hazard at once; who ultimately pays
is determined later in cost-recovery procedures. Under CERCLA
the agency can recover up to three times the amount spent at a
given site if an administrative order was issued and responsible
parties did not comply.
From December, 1980 through July 31, 1985 the government has
secured commitments for privately-financed action at 256 sites. -
with an estimated value of $479 million. Some $20.5 million in
Trust Fund money has been recovered from responsible parties. The
government has filed 105 civil actions under CERCLA for response
action and cost recovery. Some 190 unilateral administrative
orders have been issued.
Current Budget
EPA's budget for the Superfund program has tripled during
the past three years, and the size of its professional staff has
doubled. The budget has grown from $210 million in fiscal 1983
to $620 million in fiscal 1985. As of July 31, the agency had
obligated a total of $1,174 billion for Superfund work. Most of
this money is being spent on emergency action or long-term
operations at Superfund sites through contracts with engineering
and management firms in the private sector or arrangements with
state governments and federal agencies.
-4-
-------
Proposed Funding Levels
In the budget proposed by the President for fiscal 1986,
funding for the Superfund program would rise to $900 million, up
$280 million from last year. The Administration's proposed
CERCLA reauthorization bill, creating a five-year, $5.3 billion
trust fund, was introduced to the House on February 22. A Senate
bill approving $7.5 billion in taxes over five years is awaiting--
floor action. However, since revenue legislation originates in
the House, the Senate must receive the House bill before submit-
ting its own to a vote. A House bill has been reported out of
the Energy and Commerce Committee with a recommended level of
$10.1 billion and is being considered by various other committees.
Community Relations
People living in communities adjacent to Superfund sites are
obviously affected by how CERCLA is implemented. The remedial
process is lengthy and complex at best: the typical NPL site
requires an investment of four or five years and about $8 million
for a complete clean up. Where groundwater is contaminated, it
may take 30 years to finish the job. EPA is, therefore, committed
to a thorough public information program based on candid, two-way
communication, with guidelines from headquarters and full resources
in every regional office. The program helps EPA understand local
concerns and assures citizens a meaningful role in the Superfund
decision-making process.
-5-
-------
Progess to Date
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act authorizes two basic approaches to the task of
cleaning up abandoned hazardous waste dumps. The first is short-
term and emergency action for sites that pose an immediate threat
to public health or the environment. The second is a longer-term
cleanup for sites that are complex or extensively damaged but _ -
which do not necessarily present an imminent danger.
Short-term Emergency Action (as of July 31, 1985)
• Short-term emergency cleanups have been started at 452 sites.
• 388 sites have either been completed or stabilized.
• Short-term emergency cleanup actions by fiscal year (FY) were:
15 in FY 1980
21 in FY 1981
58 in FY 1982
128 in FY 1983
208 in FY 1984
153 in FY 1985 to date.
• Completed short-term cleanups are listed at the end of this
factbook.
Long-term (National Priorities List) Action (as of September 5,
1985)
• There are 850 current National Priorities List (NPL) sites,
final and proposed.
• At 177 NPL sites, short-term emergency cleanups have been
started to permit us to eliminate any immediate threats to
health, while we push ahead with engineering plans for
long-term cleanup.
• EPA has identified and notified over 8,000 potentially
responsible parties at 345 sites.
• Detailed engineering studies have been completed or are under-
way at 392 sites (350 by the states or EPA and 42 responsible
party led)
-6-
-------
• EPA's target for engineering-study starts in FY 1986 is 180,
and in FY 1987 is 190; both figures include EPA/state and
responsible-party studies.
• 119 NPL sites have reached the construction phase; 70 of these
are being carried out by EPA and the states. The other 49 are
enforcement-led.
• EPA's target for construction starts at NPL sites in FY 86 is
70 and in FY 87 is 152. These figures include both EPA/state
and responsible-party cleanups.
EPA's Superfund Resources
• FY 1983s $210 million in new budget authority
725 fulltime-equivalent positions
• FY 1984: $460 million in new budget authority (including
$50 million in requested supplemental funds)
1,057 fulltime-equivalent positions
• FY 1985: $620 million in new budget authority
1,249 fulltime-equivalent positions
-7-
-------
-------
en
en
o
CL
c
to
'o
— «
ill
o
o
3
a
-------
-------
STATEMENT OF
LEE M. THOMAS
ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
FEBRUARY 25, 1985
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a
pleasure to appear before you this morning. I am here to
honor a pledge I made last year, to submit to you early in
the 99th Congress this Administration's proposal to reauthorize
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act — the Superfund.
We have learned a great deal about the problem of
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites since Congress first
enacted Superfund just over four years ago. Much has been
accomplished using the authorities of the original law. Based
on our first-hand experiences, as well as our vision of the
problem that remains, it is time now to renew this program.
Let me say at the outset that implementation of Superfund
is the Environmental Protection Agency's highest priority.
Its reauthorization is my own top legislative goal. I will
work closely with members of this Committee to extend and
improve this vital statute.
The legislative proposal we are considering today has the
full backing and support of President Reagan as is evidenced by
the fact the President himself transmitted the legislation to you.
As you know, the President again endorsed Superfund reauthorization
in his State of the Union Message earlier this month.
-11-
-------
Since 1983, we have made substantial progress in
implementing the Superfund law. Long-term work is underway
at hundreds of sites around the country. At hundreds of
others, we have completed emergency cleanups and eliminated
immediate threats to human health and the environment.
The charts before you summarize our progress to date.
In a moment, I will provide you with a. thorough briefing on
where we have been under Superfund and where we are going.
Despite our progress, however, much remains to be done.
We must take all steps necessary to assure that we do not
lose our momentum. The legislation we present today is
designed to build upon that momentum. It will allow us to
get the cleanup job done as quickly and completely as possible.
»
Overall, this legislation will give us the tools we
need to continue implementing Superfund at the accelerated
pace we established during the past two years. Our proposal:
o Triples the resources available for cleaning up
hazardous waste sites.
o Focuses those resources on the most serious problems.
o Strengthens our enforcement capabilities and ensures
that responsible parties pay for and conduct more cleanups.
o Enhances the roles of both Federal and State governments'
in undertaking response action.
o Guarantees a meaningful role for affected citizens in
selecting cleanup options.
o Assures an adequate, stable, and equitable financial
base for the program.
-12-
-------
The $5.3 billion program we propose today, coupled with
an aggressive enforcement effort, will yield dramatic results
during the second five years under Superfund. By the end of
fiscal year 1990, we project engineering studies — the first
step in the full cleanup of a priority site ~ will have been
started at nearly 1,500 sites. Actual construction will be
underway or completed at more than 900 sites. In addition, by
the end of fiscal year 1990, emergency cleanup actions at over
1700 sites will have been undertaken.
This legislation is the product of months of intensive
effort on the part of the executive branch. The bill we
offer is a consensus document reflecting this Administration's
view of one of the most pressing environmental issues facing
this nation.
I have personally played a leadership role in preparing this
package. I will continue to be involved in the reauthorization
of Superfund.
While I am completely comfortable with the legislation
we present today, I will be candid with you. It raises some
difficult issues with which Congress must grapple. It
recognizes and respects our experiences to date, and suggests
statutory changes to allow us to proceed more effectively
with the original challenge of Superfund. It modifies the
taxing mechanism in an attempt to provide the resources we will
need to continue getting the job done.
-13-
-------
The Response Program
There can be no doubt that the public recognizes Superfund
as government's primary tool for addressing environmental and
health threats posed by abandoned hazardous waste sites.
Indeed, the legislative history of Superfund centers on
"inactive," "uncontrolled," and "orphan" hazardous waste sites.
However, response authorities in the present law are
much more sweeping in scope. They have the potential to
dilute our scarce Superfund resources among non-site-related
releases, situations posing minimal public health threats,
and other circumstances.
Our proposal focuses those resources on sites that pose
the most serious potential threat: uncontrolled and abandoned
hazardous waste sites; municipal and industrial waste disposal
facilities; sites regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act but held by insolvent firms; and spills and other
releases of hazardous substances. In addition, the bill permits
the President to take action at any site where the release of
hazardous substances poses the threat of a major public health or
environmental emergency and authorities or capabilties do not
exist for response in a timely manner. In focusing our attention,
we establish a more concerted effort to clean up what we feel
are the most dangerous sites in the nation*
In addition to clarifying the scope of response under
Superfund, our proposal would improve and expedite cleanup
in several ways. It better defines health-related authorities
and the agencies responsible for implementing them. The bill
-14-
-------
authorizes the establishment of benchmark cleanup standards for
short-term and long-term actions. And it provides limited pro-
tection for cleanup contractors against claims for future response
costs arising out of the work they perform for us.
The Enforcement Component
The enforcement provisions of this bill are critically
important to our overall success in carrying out the second
phase of Superfund implementation. During the past several
weeks, I have been a visible and vocal proponent of aggressive
enforcement stances in all EPA programs.
Enforcement was a major theme of my confirmation testimony
before this Committee less than three weeks ago. Under
Superfund, this bill gives us the opportunity to turn our
words into substantive tools capable of yielding results*
As we continue to emphasize Superfund enforcement, we
are proposing a series of statutory changes in our bill which*
taken together, will help ensure that responsible parties play
an increasingly important role in cleaning up hazardous waste
sites. These changes should be viewed within the context of
our continued reliance on the strict, joint and several
liability of responsible parties at Superfund sites.
Our bill would:
o Increase all criminal penalties to $25,000, all civil
penalties to $10,000, and create civil penalties to augment
criminal sanctions where they do not already exist.
-15-
-------
o Expedite civil actions by requiring that separate suits
be brought against other potentially liable parties for contribution
after judgment or settlement in enforcement actions.
o Clarify governmental access and information-gathering
powers and establish the authority to enforce them.
o Preclude pre-enforcement review of selected response
actions while maintaining safeguards against arbitrary and
capricious selection of remedies or use of orders.
o Impose Federal liens for response costs upon all real
property owned by responsible parties affected by an agency
response action.
8 Clearly establish foreign vessel owners' and operators'
liability for releases from their vessels.
The above authorities will do a great deal to enhance
our enforcement capabilities. This, in turn, will increase
our ability to foster responsible party cleanups and to
recover costs where site actions are paid for by the fund.
Aggressive enforcement will supplement the cleanup efforts
we undertake using the fund. I expect responsible parties,
responding to our tough enforcement posture, to sign settlements
valued at between $400 million and S500 million during fiscal
year 1986. That's three times the level of settlements for
fiscal 1984, which was a record year in itself.
Private-party cleanups between 1986 and 1990 are expected
to total approximately $2 billion. When coupled with fund-financed
activities, this will effectively yield some $7.5 billion in
total cleanup activity during that second five-year period.
-16-
-------
Federal-State Relationships
A strong, clearly defined Federal-State relationship is
also essential to the success of our Superfund program.
Through carefully crafted administrative steps, we have
delegated substantial decision-making authority to the states
during the past two years. Our legislative package complements
this trend and prescribes a greatly expanded role for the States.
The States would become increasingly active partners in
making Superfund work. We offer them the opportunity to play
a far more substantive role in managing actual site cleanup for
both short- and long-term actions, and to have a more meaningful
stake in the program's cost efficiency. We would also add clari-
fying language to the existing law allowing cooperative agreements
between EPA and the States to cover more than one site. Enforce-
ment costs would be included in these agreements.
New language would put an end to the current preemption of
State superfund-like taxing statutes. States would be permitted
to raise revenues dedicated to hazardous waste site cleanup
activities without constraint by similar Federal statutes.
We also look for the States to take on a somewhat larger
portion of the Superfund cost burden. We propose that the
States pay for 20% of the cost of long-term cleanup at sites
where the State itself is not a responsible party. This
would be an increase from the current 10% cost-share.
Similarly, we would increase the State share from 50% to 75%
for cleanup at sites where the State is the site operator.
-17-
-------
Community Involvement
Since coming to EPA in early 1983, I have been committed
to a meaningful role for affected citizens in the decisions of
the Superfund cleanup process. Although the current law does
not address this essential element in the cleanup equation, I
established a community involvement policy shortly after
taking over the hazardous waste program.
That program, and the process of involving citizens in
Superfund activities, has helped those affected by our work to
understand our decisions. It has also helped us to understand
the concerns of these citizens.
Our proposal would require that affected citizens be notified
of proposed cleanup action. They would be given an opportunity
to comment on the proposed action and any alternatives. The
objective of this amendment is to ensure community involvement
in long-term cleanup actions.
One thing I learned first-hand as head of the Superfund
program for two years is the deep, genuine concern of citizens
for the health of their families, the maintenance of their
property values, and the protection of their environment.
The public must know that this agency makes its decisions in
the light of day, after considering all responsible viewpoints.
This amendment will lend greater credibility to our efforts
to clean up hazardous waste sites.
-18-
-------
Financing
In the final analysis, realizing all of the goals we
have set for the Superfund program will depend upon an adequate
and stable financial base. We believe that a blend of taxes
together with interest on the unexpended fund balance and
cost recoveries will give us the resources we need to accomplish
our mission.
About 90% of the $5.3 billion we project being generated
by this mix of revenue sources over the next five years will
come from taxes. One-third of these funds will be generated
by feedstock taxes, while two-thirds will come from a waste-end
tax.
The details of our legislation are set out in the fact
sheet and the section-by-section analysis that I have attached
to my testimony.
In closing, I want to stress again that our legislative
proposal is a strong and balanced approach to the hazardous
waste site cleanup problem that is before us. This bill will
triple the resources available to us for cleanup activities,
strengthen our enforcement capabilities to foster private-party
cleanups, and focus all activities on those sites posing the
greatest risks to human health and the environment.
I am proud to present this legislation to this Committee.
The staff of many agencies have worked very hard putting it
together. I urge you to consider its provisions carefully
in crafting a bill to reauthorize Superfund.
Thank you very much.
-19-
-------
SUPERFUND REAUTHORIZATION FACT SHEET
President Reagan transmitted to Congress February 22
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act Amendments of 1985. The bill would reauthorize
Superfund for five years.
Summary of Key Provisions
o Resources; More than triples funds available for
Superfund activities over current law. Existing law established
a $1.6 billion trust fund through fiscal year 1985. The
proposed reauthorization would generate S5.3 billion between
fiscal years 1986 and 1990. Approximately 90 percent of these
funds would be raised through a tax on petrochemical feedstocks
and the management of all RCRA hazardous wastes (1/3
feedstock; 2/3 waste end).
o Scope; The proposed bill would concentrate EPA resources
on hazardous waste sites. These are the sites Congress
originally intended that Superfund focus on. The response
program in the Administration's bill would address abandoned
and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, municipal and industrial
waste sites with problems, and sites governed by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act but held by insolvent companies.
In addition, the bill includes a "safety valve" that enables
the President to respond to any hazardous substance release
that constitutes a major public health or environmental
emergency.
o Enforcement; The proposed reauthorization contains
several major changes in EPA's enforcement program. They
are designed to ensure that responsible parties conduct and
pay for more cleanups. Key enforcement provisions would:
--Increase all criminal penalties 525,000; all civil
penalties would increase to $10,000. New civil penalties
would be created to augment criminal sanctions where they do
not already exist.
—Expedite civil actions by requiring that separate
suits be brought against other potentially liable parties for
contribution after judgment or settlement in enforcement actions,
—Specifically define governmental access and information-
gathering powers and establish the authority to enforce them.
—Impose federal liens for response costs upon all
real property owned by responsible parties affected by an
agency response action.
-20-
-------
It is expected that these new authorities will significantly
supplement fund-financed cleanup activities. In fiscal year
1986, EPA expects responsible parties to conduct cleanup
work worth between S400 and S500 million. Through 1990, we
expect these cleanups to total some S2 billion, bringing the
estimated value of all Superfund activities over the next
five years to nearly $7.5 billion.
o State Responsibilities; The current law's preemption
of state superfund-like taxing statutes would be eliminated.
States will be able to raise revenues for their own cleanup
activities. The proposal also promotes multi-site cooperative
agreements and allows state enforcement costs to be eligible
for funding. The states would be required to pay an increasing
share of the cost of cleaning up sites. The state matching
share for sites where the state is not a responsible party
would increase from 10 percent to 20 percent. For sites
where the state is the site operator, the state share would
increase from 50 percent to 75 percent.
o Community Involvement; The proposal would make it a
statutory requirement that affected citizens be notified of
proposed cleanup actions. They would also be given the
opportunity to comment on any proposed action and on alternatives.
This amendment applies to all long-term cleanup actions,
whether they are fund-financed activities or the result of
enforcement action.
° Projections; As a result of these provisions/ EPA
projects that through fiscal year 1990, engineering studies
will have begun at over 1,500 sites. Actual construction
will be underway or completed at 920 sites. In addition, we
will have undertaken emergency cleanup actions at 1,741
sites.
-21-
-------
SUPERFUND REVENUES FACT SHEET
In designing a tax to raise revenue for funding the Superfund
program, EPA sought to meet the following objectives:
0 to provide a stable and predictable source of
revenue;
• to broaden the base from which revenue is received;
0 to minimize adverse economic impacts on industries;
0 to impose the tax on the type of industries and
practices that have caused the .hazardous substance
release problems Superfund was designed to address;
0 to encourage a reduction in the quantities of
hazardous waste generated and to discourage the
management of hazardous wastes in surface impoundments
and landfills.
EPA's proposed amendments to Superfund seek to raise
approximately $5.3 billion to finance the program over the next
five years (from FY 1986 to FY 1990).
EPA proposes to raise $5.3 billion from three sources:
1) Feedstock; A tax on crude oil and 42 petrochemicals
and raw materials used in the production of chemicals
that contribute to the hazardous substance release
problem addressed by Superfund.
The feedstock tax base and tax rates are the same as the
current tax used to finance Superfund since 1980.
This tax is designed to raise approximately $300 million
per year over the next five years.
2) Waste-management; Revenues from the management of hazardous
wastes. This includes a tax on all hazardous wastes received
at a qualified (i.e., RCRA-permitted) treatment, storage,
or disposal unit, as well as hazardous wastes disposed
of in the ocean or exported from the United States.
The tax would be imposed on the owners or operators of
hazardous waste management facilities or vessels, and
on exporters of hazardous wastes.
-22-
-------
The tax is designed to encourage alternatives to land
disposal by imposing a higher rate on the management
of wastes in landfills, surface impoundments, waste
piles and land treatment units. This provision will
complement the 1984 amendments to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, which direct EPA to consider restricting
certain wastes from land-based units.
This tax is designed to raise approximately $600 million
per year over the next five years.
3) The remaining $100 million per year would be derived
from interest on Superfund investments, from fines, and
from costs recovered from parties responsible for
hazardous substance releases cleaned up by Superfund.
Superfund is currently financed primarily by the feedstock
ax identified above in this fact sheet and money from general
evenues (12 percent). The current tax, thes general revenues,
ftd interest on the fund has raised approximately $1.6 billion
o finance Superfund response activities since 1980.
-23-
-------
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
EPA 'S PPQPOSFP AMENDMENTS TO CEPCLA
SECTION 1
Short Title
The short title of the legislation is the "Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Amendments of 1985" (CERCLA Amendments).
SECTION 2
Amendment to CEPCLA
This legislation, which reauthorizes the Superfund
program from FY 1986 to FY 1990, amends the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA or "Superfund").
SECTION 3
Statement of Findings and Purposes
This section sets forth the findings and purposes of
CERCLA. The maior findings are that —
o Releases and threats of releases of hazardous sub-
stances continue to pose serious threats to ouhlic
health and the environnent;
o A major source of the hazardous substance release
problem results from releases from uncontrolled
hazardous waste facilities; and
o To protect human health and the environment, a
comprehensive Federal program is needed. The oroaram
must include strengthened enforcement authority, a
Federal-State partnership and expanded citizen parti-
cipation for effective response to hazardous waste
sites and releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances.
The objective of this section is to clarify Congressional
intent that the focus of the Superfund program should be on
responding to releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from- uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
-24-
-------
SECTION 4
Pefinitions
Section 101(14) lists those substances which are hazardous
under CERCLA by reference to substances listed under five
other environmental laws. Section 101(14)(C) includes as
•hazardous under CERCLA "any hazardous waste having the
characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section
3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act ....".
This amendment would clarify that a substance need not
be a "waste" to be considered a CERCLA hazardous substance
under this subsection, so lona as the substance meets the
criteria of section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
SECTION 101
Authority to Respond
CEPCLA section 104(a)(l) currently authorizes resoonse
action "unless the President determines that such removal or
remedial action will be done properly by the owner or operator
of the facility...or by any other responsible party." The
amendment would clarify and confirm that the President has the
discretion to decide when resoonsible parties are authorized
to conduct cleanup in lieu of Fund-financed response.
This amendment is not intended to preclude or discourace
responsible parties from conductinc cleanup actions without
the formal permission of the Federal government. The current
requirements of section 105 of CERCLA (Rational Continaency
Plan) contemplate a significant role for private parties in
response actions.
The amendment is intended to clarify that the Federal
government would not be precluded from conductina a response
action, merely because resoonsible parties have indicated
some willingness to take some form of response action. This
amendment would confirm that if the Federal Government
determines that Federal response is needed, the President
would have the discretion to determine the appropriate response
and to take action; responsible parties would not be authorized
to forestall Federal response.
Scope of Program
The lancuage in the statute authorizes response to the
release into the environment of any designated hazardous
substance, or pollutant or contaminant which may present a
threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
-25-
-------
The amendment would focus Superfund response authority
on the problems associated with releases of hazardous substances
from uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Specifically, the
amendment would —
0 delete "pollutant or contaminant" from the Act;
0 delete "welfare" from the phrase "public health,
welfare, and the environment" in the Act;
• authorize response whenever there is a release or
substantial threat of a release into the environment
which may present a "risk" to public health or the
environment; and
0 prohibit Superfund response from certain categories
of releases, unless the President determines that a
major public health or environmental emergency exists'
and that no other person has the authority or cap-
ability to respond in a timely manner —
~ from mining activities covered by SMCRA;
from the lawful application of pesticides
registered under FIFRA;
affecting residential, business, or community
structures when contamination is not caused
by a release from a hazardous substance
• treatment, storage, or disposal facility;
affecting public or private domestic water
supply wells when contamination is not caused
by a release from a hazardous substance treat-
ment, storage, or disposal facility;
from naturally occurrina substances in their
unaltered form; and
covered by and in compliance with a permit,
issued under other federal environmental laws.
The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that
Superfund responses are focused on those releases of hazardous
substances which present the greatest threat to public health
and the environment, and to enhance EPA's ability to effectively
manaae the program.
-26-
-------
SECTION 102
Statutory Limits on Removals
Section 104(c)(l) of CKRCLA limits removal actions to
six months in duration and SI million in cost unless certain
waiver criteria are met. These criteria incude: a finding
that continued action is necessary to prevent or mitiaate the
emergency and to protect public health and the environment,
and that assistance would not otherwise be provided on a
timely basis. Because of the limits established in this
provision, some removals have been scaled-down below the ,
level needed to achieve a cost-effective response.
This amendment would provide an additional and independent
criterion for waivino the statutory limits on removal actions
and increase the six month duration limitation to one year.
The new criterion would permit removals to exceed the $1
million cost and one year duration limitations if the response
action is "appropriate and consistent with a permanent remedy."
The amendment would ensure that removals accomplish a more
complete response, if such response is appropriate in that
situation.
The primary effect of the amendment would be to enhance
the President's ability to choose the most effective response
in removal situations. Generally, the amendment would allow,
where appropriate, the first operable units of remedial
actions to be considered removals. This would provide the
Agency with increased flexibility to auickly initiate the
appropriate removal. This ability to implement a response
ouickly would enhance efforts to contain the migration of
hazardous substances. In turn, this would result in increased
public health and environmental protection and may be less
costly since hazardous substances could be contained before
they miarate to a much larger area recuiring greater response.
SECTION 103
Permanent Pemedies
-MWMM«M«M«PIMBM>MH«BM«MI^B»MMIM«P*>MB» *
Section 104(c)(4) of CEPCLA recuires the selection of an
appropriate remedial action that is consistent with th-e
National Continaency Plan (NCP) and is cost-effective in
liaht of concerns about protectina public health and the
environment, considerations of Fund-balancing, and the need
for immediate action. There is no explicit reauirement that
the selection of a remedial action take into consideration
permanent solutions or alternative treatment technologies.
-27-
-------
EPA currently considers the lona-term effectiveness and
the permanence of alternatives in its selection of the appro-
priate remedial action. This amendment would provide explicit
Conaressional approval of FPA's position and would allow
revision of the NCP to implement this approach to permanent
remedies.
•SECTION 104
Offsite Remedial Action
Section 101(24) of CERCLA, which defines "remedy or
remedial action", provides that additional threshold criteria
must be met before the President may undertake off-site
disposal of hazardous substances. This creates a bias aaainst
off-site disposal and reflects past Conaressional and EPA
emphasis on on-site land disposal as the preferred remedial
action.
The objective of the amendment is- to eliminate the
statutory bias for on-site remedies by makina the statute
neutral with reaard to on-site or off-site remedies.
Congress, as reflected in the 1984 amendments to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and EPA have come to
recoanize the value of treatment and other alternative
technologies.
The primary effect of this amendment would be to reduce
the proliferation of sites requiring monitoring in perpetuity
(by consolidatina'wastes from many sites into one laraer and
closely monitored facility), by recognising the value of
permanent off-site remedies, such as treatment.
SECTION IPS
National Continaencv Plan (NCP)
This amendment would (1) eliminate the requirement that
the NCP include at least 400 facilities, and (2) clarify
that States are allowed only one highest priority designation
for the life of the list.
The deletion of the phrase "at least 400 facilities"
would allow the Agency to select and place on the National
Priorities List, only those facilities which present "the
areatest danger to public health or welfare or the environment.
-28-
-------
The second cart of the amendment would be a Conqressional
ratification of E°A's present policy which is to permit the
States to make only one hiahest priority desianation. This
policy is reflected in th'e most recent proposed revisions to
the NCP.
These amendments allow the President to effectively
limit the NPL to only those facilities which pose significant
problems to public health or the environment as determined
through Aqency reaulation.
SECTION 106
Cooperative Agreements
The amendment would explicitly permit contracts and
cooperative agreements to cover more than one facility, as is
current EPA policy, and clarifies and confirms that response
includes enforcement activities associated with a remedial
or removal action. The obiective of the amendment is to
facilitate State response activities by permitting States to
enter into agreements covering more than one site, and by
providing Fund money for response actions, including
enforcement activities.
The 'primary effect of the amendment would be to increase
State participation in response and enforcement activities.
This would increase the overall pace and effectiveness of the
Superfund program.
SECTION 107
Publicly Operated Facilities
Section 104(c)(3) of CERCLA requires States to pay at
least 50 percent of response costs for hazardous substance
releases from facilities owned by the State or political
subdivision thereof at the time the release occurred.
The amendment would change the 50 percent State cost share
to 75 percent and impose the 75 percent or greater cost-share
only at those facilities operated directly or indirectly by
the State or political subdivision. The test for imposing
the 75 percent or greater cost-share would be related to
operation rather than ownership of the facility at the time
of disposal of hazardous substances. The cost-share under
this amendment would apply to sites owned and operated by >'
the State; sites owned by the State and operated by a private
party under a contract or lease with the State; and sites
-29-
-------
owned by a private party but operated by the State. The
objective of the amendment is to impose the cost-share on
States only in those cases where the State is involved in
the operation of the facility, either directly or indirectly.
This amendment would also clarify that for purposes of
this amendment only that the term facility will not include
navigable waters or the beds underlyina those waters, and thus
a 75 percent cost share would not he imposed on States for
response actions at such facilities.
SECTION 108
Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities
Section 104(c)(3) of CERCLA reauires that States assure
the availability of hazardous waste disposal facilities for
off-site remedial actions that are in compliance with subtitle
C of PCRA. States are not, however, required to nor provided
incentives for creating or expandina existino capacity for
managina wastes, or otherwise provide for future treatment
and disposal of hazardous wastes. In order to maintain^an
aggressive Superfund procran, it is essential to ensure that
States have adeauate waste disnosal capabilities. \ v
\
This amendment would provide initiatives to Statesv-to
create and expand capacity for managina wastes within the
State by prohibiting the use of Fund money for resoonse
, actions in. those States that- do not assure the, availabili-ty
of hazardous waste disnosal capacity sufficient to handle "-•
that State's needs durino a period of tine to be specified
by regulation. The amendment would be effective two years
after enactment.
There would be limited exceptions to this prohibition.
First, the amendment would permit Fund exnenditures for
alternative drinking water or for temporary relocation of
affected individuals from their homes for up to one year.
Second, Fund money could be used to finance a response action
in a State that does not provide the above assurance if the
President determines that a major public health or environmental
emergency exists.
Any response action taken where the State fails to
assure the availability of sufficient offsite capacity would
be subject to a higher cost share.
The amendment would also reguire States to pay any additional
costs associated with transportina wastes outside the State's
boundaries (or outside the reaion, if the State has entered
into a regional aareement for hazardous waste treatment and
disposal) in addition to the cost of the remedy. This clause
would be effective upon enactment.
-30-
-------
The objective of the amendment is to create an economic
incentive for States to expand existina or create new long-
term in-state capacity to manage hazardous wastes.
SECTION 109
Community Involvement
CERCLA does not presently address the role of community
involvement in response actions. Existing federal policy does,
however, provide for an active community role as expressed in
existina program guidance and the proposed revisions to the
National Contingency Plan.
This amendment would reauire public notification and an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed action. The
primary objective of the amendment is to ensure community
involvement in remedial actions taken pursuant to this Act,
including Fund-financed and enforcement actions.
Because the President has already incorporated the
reouirements set forth in this amendment in ooeratina ouidance,
the amendment itself would not impose new responsibilities
on the federal government.
The amendment confirms the President's commitment to
community involvement in the Superfund proaram.
SECTION 110
Health Related Authorities
Section 104(i) of CERCLA establishes the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). ATSDR, in
cooperation with EPA and other federal aoencies, is authorized
to implement the health related authorities of the Act.
These authorities include the establishment and maintenance
of: a national registry of diseases and illnesses associated
with and persons exposed to hazardous substances, and a data
base on the health effects of hazardous substances. CERCLA
does not clearly define specific roles and responsibilities
of ATSDP and EPA in implementina these and other health
related authorities.
The amendment would clarify that the primary purpose of
health related "activities is to support response actions
through health assessments, consultations, and other technical
assistance relating to the health effects of exposure to
hazardous substances, and to improve the ability to render
future public health recommendations throuah expanding the
existina body of scientific knowledae.
-31-
-------
In addition, the amendment would clarify existina roles
and responsibilities of ATSDR and FPA in conductina various
health related activities. Specifically, the amendment would
authorize EPA as well as State and local officials to reauest
that ATSDR provide health consultations, assessments, and
other assistance to determine the health effects of exposure
to hazardous substances. ATSDR may provide such assistance.
The President would also he authorized to conduct exposure
and risk assessments at sites where a release has occurred.
The amendment would not sianificantly affect current
health related activities but it merely provides a
statutory basis for current roles and responsibilities
undertaken by ATSDR and EPA.
SECTION 111
Compliance with Other Environmental Laws
This amendment would authorize the President to specify
in the National Continaency Plan (NCP) the extent to which
remedial and removal actions selected under section 104 or
selected under section 106 should comply with applicable or
relevant standards and criteria established under other
Federal, State or local environmental and public health
laws. The amendment would specify the factors the President
must consider in makina this determination; these include:
the level of health or environmental protection provided by
the standard; the technical feasibility of achieving the
standard; the interim or permanent nature of the response;
the need for expedient action; and the need to preserve funds
to respond to other respond to other releases.
The objective of the amendment is to clarify and confirm
the President's authority to determine when response actions
should comply with other Federal, State, or local laws, which
is set forth in existing EPA policy. This amendment confirms
that because of the uniaue statutory provisions of CERCLA,
and requirements for response action that strict compliance
with other statutory provisions is often not appropriate or
necessary.
-32-
-------
SECTION 112
Actions Under the National Contingency Plan
Section 107(d) of CERCLA exempts persons from liability
for damages resulting from actions taken or omitted in responding
to hazardous substance releases.
This amendment would add that persons (e.g.* EPA contractors
and others) conducting response actions in accordance with the
NCP or at the direction of an on-scene coordinator are also
exempt from liability for future response costs. This
means that, for example, contractors would not he held liable
for additional response costs at a site if another response
action is taken at a site where the contractor already conducted
a previous action (if a second response action was taken because
the first response was not sufficient to address the problem),
unless the orioinal action was neoligent or intentionally
misconducted.
The primary effect of the amendment would be to limit
contractor liability for future response costs. The amendment
would not affect third party liability claims. Nor would the
amendment affect the liability of oersons liable or potentially
liable under section in?(a) who undertake a response action
under- this act.
Section 113
Natural Resource Damage Claims
The amendment would clarify existing language about the
responsibilities of Federal and State natural resources
trustees. In general, the Federal or State trustee would perform
assessments of damage to resources under its jurisdiction,
except that Federal trustees may perform assessments on behalf
of States and may be reimbursed by States for performing the
assessments. Neither Federal nor State trustees would be
required to use the damaae assessment reaulations being
prepared by the Department of the Interior, but if they used the
Department of the Interior reoulation the assessment would be
entitled to a presumption of validity.
The amendment would also eliminate use of the Fund to pay
trustees for damage to natural resources. Accordingly, all
references to natural resource damage claims against the Fund
would be deleted from the Act. The ability of Federal and
State trustees to recover damages from responsible parties
under section 107 would not diminished.
Finally, Federal aoencies with custody and accountability
for specific Federal facilities would be the sole trustee of
natural resources on, under, or above such facilities for
purposes of CEP.CLA.
-33-
-------
SFCTION
Response Claims
Section 111 of CERCLA authorizes parties who conduct
response actions to assert claims against the Fund to recover
necessary response costs incurred in carrying out the National
Contingency Plan. The procedures to be followed in presentina
and processing these claims aaainst the Fund are set forth in
section 112. This amendment would clarify and streamline the
process for response claims.
The amendment would make the follcwino changes:
•
o Clarify authority to ^reauthorize response claims;
0 Eliminate provisions for negotiations with responsible
parties;
0 Substitute an administrative hearing process for
claims adjustments and arbitration; and
o Clarify time frames for review of claims.
The availability of response claims can expedite private
oarty cleanup. Followino preauthorization for all or portions
of the cleanup, private parties can promptly conduct cleanup
action, and bring claims to the Fund when the response action
is completed.
CEFCLA currently prescribes five steps at a minimum in
the process fron initial presentation of the claim to the
responsible party to final payment of an award, where
administrative review and judicial appeal are involved the
process nay take as many as eight steps before the claimant
receives final payment of an award.
The amendments to this section would streamline the
claims procedure. First, section 111 would be amended to
clarify the authority of the Agency to ^reauthorize response
claims. Preauthorization can be used to assure that response
actions are conducted properly/ and that they are limited 'to
available funds.
Second, the provisions for negotiations with responsible
parties prior to payment of claims would be eliminated. Such
negotiations as are needed would be conducted prior to pre-
authorization.
-34-
-------
Third, an administrative hearing process would he sub-
stituted for the arbitration procedure presently provided for
in the statute. The arbitration procedure is a vestiqe of
certain economic damaqe claims which were not enacted in
1980. In that the claims procedures will involve only
reimbursement of costs, there is no reason for claims to be
arbitrated.
Response costs, are not particularly appropriate for
consideration by a panel of arbitrators.
Fourth, certain ambiguities in the timeframes for
Presidential action would be clarified*
SECTION* 115
Indian Tribes
CERCLA is presently silent reaardino the status of tribal
qovernnents and Indian lands. Current CEPCLA policy, however,
recoonizes tribal Governments as independent sovereiqns with
authority and responsibility over reservations rouahly analoqous
to that of State aovernments. This means that tribal governments
are subiect to various notification, consultation, health
related activity, and financial and disposal capacity assurance
requirements.
The proposed amendment would clarify the role of States,
Indian tribes, and the Federal qovernnent for facilities
on Indian lands. It defines Indian lands to include only
those where there is some type of trust responsibility or
restriction against alienation.
Subsection (a) would add two new definitions, "Indian tribe"
and "Indian lands." Both definitions are tied to the United
States trust responsibility. Not all Federally recoqnized
Indian tribes would be included in the CF.PCLA definition; only
those tribes for which land, is held in trust.
Section (b) would set forth the procedure for remedial actions
on Indian lands. Indian tribes would be required to provide
the assurances specified in section 104(c)(3) for sites on
Indian lands. If the Secretary of the Interior finds that a
tribe cannot provide these assurances, the Department of the
Interior may provide them on behalf of the tribe, .states
would not be required to provide assurance for sites wholly
on Indian lands.
-35-
-------
The amendment authorizes the President to enter into
aoreements with Indian tribes to carry out response actions
under section 104 and the National Continaency "Ian and to
enforce these agreements. Indian tribes would be reimbursed
from the Fund for reasonable response costs.
Also, Indian tribes would be notified by the National Response
Center of releases that affect Indian lands.
SECTION 116
Preemption
Section 114 (c) of CFRCLA preempts States from requiring;
persons to contribute to any fund desianed to provide compensation
for claims for response costs or damaaes which may be compen-
sated under CERCLA. The provision is not clear and it has been
argued that the intent of this provision is to preempt States
from imposing State taxes to finance certain CERCLA and
non-CERCLA action.
The amendment would delete the section which preempts
States from imposing taxes for purposes already covered by
CERCLA. The objective of the amendment is to ensure that
States may impose taxes to meet Superfund cost-share require-
ments-, and to foster State cleanup at sites not covered by
CERCLA.
The primary effect of the amendment would be to remove a
potential barrier to the creation of State superfund programs.
The amendment may result in an increase in the number and
pace of hazardous substance response actions undertaken or
partially funded by States since States would be able to
raise funds to assist such hazardous substance response.
SECTION 117
State Cost-Share
Section 104 (c) ( 3) (C) ( i ) of CERCLA reouires States to pay
ten percent of costs for remedial actions at privately owned
facilities.
This amendment would alter the existing- Federal-State
cost-share to reauire States to pay 20 percent of the remedial-
action costs at privately owned sites. The cost-share for
State or political subdivision sites would be 75 percent
(see section 106. of this Act).
The objective of this amendment is to reduce the existincr
burden on the Federal government for financing remedial
response actions by recuirina the States to pay a larger
share of costs at privately owned sites. The amendment is
consistent with an overall noal of these amendments in
increasing the role of the States in conducting response
actions.
-36-
-------
TITLE II — PROVISIONS RFLATING PRIMARILY TO SKFORCEMENT
SECTION 201
Civil Penalties for Non-Reporting
Section 103(a) of CKRCLA reouires any person in charae
of a vessel or facility to notify the National Response Center
as soon as the person in charqe has knowledqe of any release
of a hazardous substance in an amount that eouals or exceeds
the reportable Quantity established under .section J02. These
notifications serve as one basis for the Federal Government
to determine whether response action is appropriate for the
release.
The existing statute provides only criminal penalties
for failure to report. This amendment would increase the
criminal penalty to 525,000 and provide additional enforcement
flexibility by allowing the imposition of a civil penalty of
up to ?10,000 per violation.
The anendnent would enable the Administrator to assess
civil penalties aqqreqatinq less than 325,000 for such
violations? penalties aqqreqatinq more than 325,000 may
be recovered by the Attorney General throuah a civil action.
Civil penalties for violations of notification requirements
have several advantaqes:
First, civil penalties may be imposed in situations where
the violations do not merit the sanctions associated with •
criminal violations.
Second, when the Federal government takes an enforcement
action to compel private narty cleanup action for such a
release, the Federal qovernment may now also seek penalties
for violations of the notification provision in the cleanup
enforcement action.
-37-
-------
SECTION 202
Contribution and Parties to Litigation
This amendment would chance section 107 of CERCLA
to provide a greater decree of finality to settlements reached
with responsible parties, and to expedite private party
cleanup by simplifying the litiaation process in imminent
hazard and cost recovery actions.
This amendment would clarify and confirm existino law
qoverninq liability of potentially responsible parties in
three respects:
parties found liable under section 106 or in?
would have a right of contribution, allowina them to
sue other liable or potentially liable parties to
re-cover a portion of the costs paid;
- parties who reach a judicially approved good faith
settlement with the government would not liable for
the contribution claims of other liable parties; and
- where a civil or administrative action is underway,
contribution actions could be brouaht only after a
judgment is entered or a settlement in good faith is
reached.
The first provision should help to encouraae private
party settlements and cleanups. Parties who settle or who
pay judgments as a result of litigation, could attempt to
recover some portion of their loss in subsequent contribution
litigation from parties who were not sued in the enforcement
action. Private parties may be more willina to assume the
financial responsibility for cleanup if they are assured that
they can seek contribution from others.
The second provision would help bring an increased measure
of finality to settlements. Responsible parties who have entered
into a judicially approved aood faith settlement under the Act
would be protected from payino any additional portion of
costs to other responsible parties in a contribution action.
The third provision would allow more expeditious management
of litigation. Hazardous waste sites often involve dozens or
even hundreds of potentially responsible parties with differinc
types and degrees of involvement in the facility. While
the government may sue all potentially responsible parties,
it need not sue all these parties. It may instead sue a
limited number of parties to secure complete cleanup or all
costs of cleanup under the theory of joint and several liability.
In some instances these parties have in turn sued other
potentially responsible parties in the same iudicial action.
In several cases this has resulted in massive and potentially
unmanageable litigation.
-38-
-------
The amendment would clarify that if an enforcement action
is underway, claims for contribution or indemnification
could not be hrounht until a judgment or settlement is reached.
This change would allow the government to limit the number
of parties in its actions, so that litiaation could be conducted
in a more efficient and expeditious fashion.
SECTION 203
Access and Information Gathering
Section 104 (e) of CERCLA clearly authorizes the Agency to
reguest information concerning the treatment, storage, disposal
or handling of. hazardous substances, and to enter premises
where hazardous substances were generated, stored, treated,
disposed, or transported. This amendment would clarify and
confirm the President's right to access and information
concerning the release or threatened release of hazardous substances
by making explicit the original intent of. Congress when CEPCLA
was enacted in 1980.
\
*s
Currently, there is no explicit authority to enforce
information reguests under CERCLA. In addition, there is no
explicit language to compel parties to provide access to the
site or adjacent areas. Access to the site is 'obviously
needed to conduct a response action. The President may also
need access to adjacent areas to conduct sampling or move -
While landowners generally will provide access voluntarily,
explicit statutory authority would encourage private parties
to consent to access and information reguests, and would
provide explicit mechanisms for the President to obtain access
and information when such reauests are reasonable but refused.
This amendment would also establish procedures for the
President to issue orders for access and information- The
President would notify potential recioients of orders and
provide an opportunity for consultation. The President could
also seek to have the Federal courts enjoin interference with
access and direct private parties to comply with orders.
This provision would enable the government to seek judicial
relief so that necessary response actions would not be unduly
delayed.
SECTION 204
Administrative Orders for Section 104(b) Actions
CERCLA section 104(b) currently authorizes the President
to conduct a- variety of investigations, studies, and information
gathering activities. nnder this section, remedial investigations
and feasibility studies (BI/FSs) are performed to serve as the
basis for choosing the appropriate extent of remedy.
-39-
-------
In some circumstances, it may he appropriate to allow
potentially responsible parties to conduct RT/FSs or other
investigations or studies. This approach would free up
government resources to address other sites, and would
increase the likelihood that private parties would assume
responsibilities for cleanup of the site. Such private-party
RI/FSs are most effective when they are performed pursuant
to an administrative order that clearly sets out the responsi-
bilities of the private parties.
This amendment to CEPCLA would provide for administrative
orders on consent without the need for any findings by the
President with regard to potential hazard at the facility, to
allow the planning and investigative stages of response
actions to proceed more expeditiously. The order would be
enforceable in district court, and the court could issue a
civil penalty for noncompliance.
It should be noted that EPA retains the authority to
choose the appropriate remedy, based on a Record of Decision
developed by EPA. This amendment would not authorize orders
on consent for actual cleanup activities under section 104.
This section would also include a technical amendment to
section in? of CERCLA. Section 107 currently provides for
treble damages from any person who is liable for a release or
threat of release and who fails without sufficient cause to
comply with an order under section 104. The penalties established
for violations of administrative orders for access under
section 203 of this Act. and orders on consent for private
party studies and investiaations, are sufficient incentives
to assure compliance. Accordingly, the reference to treble
damages for violations of section 104 orders would be removed.
This would not change the President's authority to seek treble
damages for violations of orders under section 106..
SECTION 205
Non-Trust Fund and Pre-Trust Fund Expenditures
This amendment would clarify and confirm that CERCLA
establishes liability for costs incurred by the United States in
response to a release or threatened release of a hazardous
substance from a treatment, storage or disposal facility
where the response was after passeae of the Resource Conservation
-40-
-------
and Recovery Act of 1976 and the party knew or should have
known of the response action. Such costs must not have been
inconsistent with remedial or removal actions under CERCLA.
The United States has incurred substantial response
costs in connection with responses at hazardous waste facilities
occurring after enactment of RCRA that are wholly consistent
with CERCLA's coals and authorities. Where the person knew or
should have known of the Federal response action, but did not
act to clean up the release, it is entirely appropriate and
consistent with CERCLA to clarify and confirm that responsible
parties are liable for such response costs.
SECTION 206
Statute of Limitations
CERCLA currently includes no explicit statute of
limitations for the filino of cost recovery actions under
section 107. Nevertheless, the Federal government recognizes
the need for filing of cost recovery actions in a timely
fashion, to assure that evidence concernina liability and
response costs is fresh, to help replenish the Fund, and to
provide some measure of finality to affected responsible
parties. The absence of an explicit statute of limitations
has also led to some uncertainty concernina whether the
existence of such a statute of limitations should be assumed
under Federal law.
This amendment would eliminate this uncertainty by
establishing a six-year statute of limitations for the filina
of cost recovery actions. The six-year statute of limitations
is the same as the period established by a clear line of
cases involving the parallel provisions in section 311 of the
Clean Water Act. Because response actions may extend for a
number of years, the Government is not precluded from commencing
an action for recovery of costs at any time after such costs
have been incurred.
For purposes of this section, the response action is
regarded as comoleted unon completion of any ooeration and
maintenance activities funded by the Federal government.
In addition, this amendment would provide a three-year
statute of limitations: for damaae actions, running from
the date of discovery of the loss; for contribution actions,
running from entry of iudament or the date of settlement;
and for rights subrooated pursuant to a claim paid from the
Fund, from the date of payment of such claim.
-41-
-------
SECTION
Pre-Enforcement Peview
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the process
for judicial review of government decisions on the appropriate
extent of remedy and liability of responsible parties. This
section establishes that:
o review of all Presidential decisions concerning
remedy is on the administrative record;
o there is no pre-enforcement review of section 106
administrative orders; and
o administrative orders are subject to iudicial review
once response action is completed.
(a) Record Review:
Wh.i3e CERCLA does not explicitly state how decisions on
remedies will be judicially reviewed, the Federal government
has taken the position and certain courts have suaqested that
review of decisions concerning remedy, like most administrative
decisions, are on the basis of the administrative record.
This amendment would clarify and confirm that judicial review
of the response action is limited to the administrative
record and that the action shall be upheld unless it is
arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with
law. Reliance on an administrative record helps assure that
the basis for the response decision is clearly articulated
and open to the scrutiny by the public and responsible parties.
Limiting judicial review of response actions to the
administrative record also expedites the process of review
and ensures that the reviewing court's attention is focused
on the information and criteria used in selecting the remedy.
(b) Pre-Enforcement Review:
Section 106 orders may be subject to judicial review at the
time the government acts to enforce the order and collect penalties
for non-compliance. This amendment would clarify and confirm
that orders are not subject to judicial review prior to that
time.
The clarification reflects the fact that pre-enforcement
review would be a significant obstacle to the use of administrative
orders. It is likely that pre-enforcement review would lead
to considerable delay in providing cleanups, increase response
costs and discouraae settlements and voluntary cleanups.
-42-
-------
(c) Review of Orders:
The chanaes discussed above clarify and confirm the
existing process. Section 208(c) would amend section lOfi to
establish new procedures for reimbursement of certain response
costs and to provide for judicial review of administrative
orders once the response action reauired by the order is
•completed.
Under the amendment, responsible parties can reauest
reimbursement from the Fund for costs incurred in responding
to an order. If the President refuses to orant all or part
of a petition for reimbursement, responsible parties may
file an action in district court seekina reimbursement.
Responsible parties can obtain reimbursement if they can show
that:
o they are not liable, and that the costs which they
incurred in responding to the ord«r wsrs reasonable; or
o the response action ordered by the President was
arbirtrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance
with law.
This provision is intended to foster compliance with orders
and expeditious cleanup, allowing potentially responsible
parties to preserve their positions concerning liability and
the appropriateness of the response action, in circumstances
where they agree to undertake the cleanup, finder the record review
provisions discussed above, responsible parties would also
have opportunities for input into the decision making process
for choosina the appropriate response action.
SECTION 208
Nationwide Service of Process
Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits
effective service of process to the territorial limits of the
State in which the district court is held, unless a Federal
statute provides otherwise.' niffaculties have arisen in
obtaining personal jurisdiction over certain defendants in
actions by the United States under CERCLA. This amendment
would remove these difficulties by providing that the United
States may serve a defendant in any district where he resides,
transacts business, or may otherwise be found.
SECTION 209
Abatement Action
This amendment would delete the references to "welfare" in
section 106 of CSRCLA. Conseguently, enforcement or abatement
action could only be taken when the President determines
that there may be an- imminent and substantial endangerment
-43-
-------
to the public health or the environment because of an actual
or threatened release of a hazardous substance from a facility.
This amendment focuses CERCLA enforcement efforts on public
health and the environment.
SECTION 210
Federal Lien
This amendment would enable the United States to recover
at least some of its response costs through an i_n rem action
against the real property that is the subject of the respons_e -
action. Such protection for the United States would also
enable it to recover the increase in land value resultino
from the response action, thus oreventino unjust enrichment
of the property owner.
The amendment would provide that all costs and damages
for which a person is liable to the United States under
section 107(a) shall be a lien on all real property affected
by the response action. The lien would arise at the time the
United States first incurs response costs, but would not be
perfected as against purchasers, security interest holders,
and judament lien creditors (all as defined in the tax lien'
statute, 26 U.S.C. $6321 et seof) until notice of the lien
has been recorded or filed. The notice provision would not apply
with respect to any person who knew or should have known that
the United States had incurred response costs.
SECTION 211
Penalties
This amendment would increase criminal penalties in
section 103(d)(2) of CERCLA for destruction of records from
.
-------
This amendment provides procedures for administrative
settlement of CEPCLA claims. The lanauaae is modeled closely
after a similar provision in the Federal Tort Claims Act, 10
U.S.C. S 2672. Under the amendment, Federal aqencies are
authorized to settle claims for $25,000 or less in accordance
with Justice Department procedures, and to arrive at tentative
settlements for Justice Department approval for amounts over
$25,000.
SECTION 213
Foreign Vessel Liability
This amendment would delete from CFPCLA a clause that
had the unintended effect of excludina from liability under
section 107 all foreian vessels not under United States
jurisdiction, even when such vessels release hazardous
substances in areas otherwise subiect to United States
jurisdiction.
-45-
-------
TITLE III — AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL PEVEMUF COPE OF 1954
Title II of CERCLA amended the Internal Revenue Code of
1954, establishing the Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fund (Fund). The Fund is comprised primarily of revenue derived
from excise taxes on certain petrochemicals and inorganic raw
•materials, as well as on domestic crude oil and imported petroleum
products (87%) and appropriations from the General Fund (12%).
Revenues in the Fund are used to finance Superfund response and
support activities.
The present CEPCLA tax scheme is referred to as a "fee3-
stock tax" because it imposes a tax on-the basic chemical
building blocks of chemical products. The hazardous substances
and wastes associated with the problems addressed by CEPCLA are
byproducts of production processes that use these raw materials.
The Fund was designed to contain aporoximately SI.6 billion
from FY 1981 through FY 1985. Current authorization to impose
taxes to finance the prooram expires September 30, 1985. This
amendment is needed to authorize the imposition of taxes to
finance Superfund response actions over the next five years.
The tax structure set forth in these amendments has been
designed to meet the following objectives:
0 to provide a stable and predictable source of revenue;
0 to broaden the tax base from which contributions are
received;
0 to minimize adverse economic imoacts on taxed -industries;
and
0 to focus the tax on the type of industries and practices
that have caused the problems that are addressed by
Superfund.
The amendment would authorize a Fund of aooroximately
SI billion per year, or roughly S5.3 billion from FY 19-86 through
FY 1990. This represents the level of funding that can be
effectively managed over the next five years and raised without
sianificant adverse affects on tax paying firms.
The amendment would establish a Fund with revenue derived
primarily from three sources.
The first source of revenue would be derived from a
feedstock tax. This tax would be imoosed on crude oil and
petroleum products as well as the 42 chemical feedstocks
taxed under the present statute. The tax rates imposed on
these feedstocks would remain the same as the rates estab-
lished in 1980: approximately S4.87 per ton for petrochemical
feedstocks, approximately S4.45 per ton for inorganic raw
-46-
-------
materials {with adjustnents for elemental eouivalency), and
0.79 cents per barrel for crude oil and oetroleum oroducts.
This feedstock tax would maintain the current CEP.CLA exemptions
on methane or butane used as fuel, substances used in the
production of fertilizers, sulfuric acid produced as a by-
product of air pollution control, substances derived from
coal, and taxable chemicals made from previously taxed taxable
•chemicals. The feedstock tax has been desianed to raise
approximately $300 million oer year.
The second source of revenue would be derived from a.
waste-management tax. This tax would be imposed on the
receipt of hazardous wastes at a Qualified treatment, storage,
or disposal unit (i.e. a unit permitted under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)), as well as on hazardous
wastes disposed of in the ocean or exported from the United
States. The tax liability would be imposed on the owner or
operator of a qualified hazardous waste management facility,
the owner or operator of a vessel that disposes of wastes
into or over the ocean, and the exporter of hazardous wastes.
The tax rates imposed under the waste-management tax
would increase each year of the tax, and would be hiaher for
landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and land treatment
units. The followina amount per wet^weiqht ton would be imposed;
Year Pate *
FY 86 S 9,80 per ton
FY 87 $10.09
FY 88 S11.13
FY 89 S13.48
FY 90 S16.32
For waste exoorted from the U.S., disposed into or over
the ocean, or received at a Qualified hazardous waste manage-
ment unit other than specified above, the following amount
per wet-weight ton would be imposed:
Year Rate *
FY 86 S 2.61 per ton
FY 87 S 2.68
FY 88 S 2.96
FY 89 S 3.59
FY 90 S 4,37
* Beginning in 1*87, the tax rates would be adjusted annually to
compensate for any shortfalls in projected revenues. If necessarv
to meet revenue targets, the tax may be extended from October 1,
1990, through March 31, 19*1, at the same rates applicable in
Fiscal Year 199O.
-47-
-------
Bastes manaqed in units not subject to permits under
subtitle r of RCRA (e.a. wastes stored In tanks and containers
for less than 90 days), wastes from CERCLA response actions, and
wastes oenerated bv federal facilities would not be subject to
the waste-nanaaenent tax. Additionally, a credit would be
given for taxes already paid on wastes that are transferred
from one taxable unit to another. If the units involved in
the transfer have different applicable tax rates, the credit
would be based on the lower rate.
The w-aste-manaoement tax has been desianed to-raise approx-
imately $600 million per year. - •
The third source of revenue would .be derived from interest
on Superfund investments, fines, costs recovered from parties
responsible for response actions financed from the Fund, and
intra-fund transfers. This portion of the Fund would raise
approximately S100 million per year.
-48-
-------
TITLE IV — MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SECTION 401
Applicability of Amendments
This amendment would add a new section to CERCLA providing
that the amendments relating to section 104(a) and
-------
STATEMENT OF LEE M. THOMAS
ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
UNITED STATES SENATE
APRIL 25, 1985
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. It is a
pleasure to be here today to talk about the Administration's
proposal to reauthorize the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act — the Superfund.
In particular, I want to lay out for you a complete rationale
for the cost and revenue projections supporting our proposed
funding level and mention our proposed financing provisions.
As you know, on a number of occasions I have expressed
concerns about the size and scope of some of the reauthorization
options considered by Congress. Historically, there has been
a tendency on the. part of the Federal government, whenever it
deals with a major national problem, to' equate total funding
with the effectiveness of a particular solution. The more we
spend, the more we must be doing, or so that philosophy goes.
With Superfund, this is not the case. We are faced
with a national challenge that is enormous in scope and
implication. But during the past two years, we have worked hard
to fashion a program capable of dealing with both the immediate
and the long-term consequences of the hazardous waste problem.
It is essential, as we prepare to extend that effort, to make
sure we stay on course with a program which has been proven
effective.
-50-
-------
I am convinced that the Administration's Superfund
reauthorization bill is a sound and responsible approach for
implementing our hazardous waste cleanup program for the
next five years. It triples resources available for actual
cleanup work. It focuses those resources on the-most serious
problems first — uncontrolled and abandoned hazardous substance
sites. And it strengthens our ability to enforce the law
and impose stringent new penalties on those who violate it.
In short, the bill gives EPA the resources and the
authorities we need to continue to build on the cleanup
momentum established during the past two years. The President
told me to make Superfund my top legislative priority for
1985, and I have. I will work with you to assure that the
Superfund program is allowed to continue with its vital
mission.
As I said, our proposal will substantially increase the
size of the fund. It will generate some $5.3 billion during
the next five years, principally from taxes on those industries
linked directly to the nation's hazardous waste problems.
Coupled with an aggressive enforcement program which we
project will yield an additional $2 billion in private-party
cleanup, we anticipate a program likely to generate approximately
$7.5 billion in total cleanup activity between 1986 and 1990.
-51-
-------
With this resource base, we will be able to expand our
emergency cleanup program for addressing immediate threats
to human health and the environment. In the long-term arena,
we will work toward permanent solutions to chronic hazards.
And we will guarantee that affected communities and individual
citizens have a meaningful role to play in all of our cleanup
activities.
My purpose today is not to address the details of the
Administration's proposal, although I am happy to answer any
questions you may have. Rather, I would like to spend my
time here talking through with you why I feel this bill
provides us with all the resources we can use during the next
five years. I want to explain where we see the funding coming
from, and what we expect to be buying in the way of cleanup.
It is ray hope that we will conclude today's hearing with
a better understanding of the Administration's package, the
rationale for those options we have selected in crafting it,
the complexity of the Superfund program as it moves into high
gear, and the reasons why this bill represents our best bet
for moving forward with the second phase of this national
priority program.
Putting together the reauthorization package has been a
difficult challenge. The original Superfund law was sweeping
in nature and scope. But it was designed to address a problem
of unclear magnitude, in the absence of any first-hand
experience.
-52-
-------
Today, we have that experience. Superfund reflects over
four years of experience. We have a far better appreciation
for the complexity of the problem we face, and for its enormity,
We have our feet on the ground and we are making progress.
We have in place an effective program for identifying
potentially hazardous sites, evaluating them, assessing the
risks posed by each, and selecting those requiring Federal- -
attention. More than 800 sites are now on our National
Priorities List. As many as 2,000 sites — perhaps more —
will eventually be identified as most in need of long-term
cleanup, often using Federal resources.
But the Superfund law does more. It also gives us tools
for protecting human health and the environment from immediate
dangers caused by unexpected releases of hazardous substances.
Under this emergency cleanup authority we can take a variety
of steps to address immediate dangers at any site.
It is these two primary authorities — long-term authority
to clean up sites posing chronic threats and emergency
authority to eliminate immediate hazards — that are the
framework within which we plan for the future.
Based on projections for how many new long- and short-term
activities we will start each year, historic data on how long
it takes to conduct various cleanup steps, and experience
with costs, we are able to put forward what we feel are
reliable estimates of our needs over the next five years -
-53-
-------
Long-term cleanup work at national priority sites has three
distinct phases. First, there is the planning phase during which
engineers and other technical professionals carefully characterize
the site and assess the feasibility of cleanup options. Second,
once we decide on a cleanup strategy, we design the remedy.
Finally, we actually implement the remedy. This is generally
a complex construction project.
Typically, it takes about 18 months to carry out the
first step. Our remedial investigations and feasibility
studies look at all site factors, including geological structure,
soil characteristics, mixes and concentrations of contaminants,
and hydrogeology. With this information, we determine the
extent of the problem, including whether groundwater has been
•
contaminated.
We spend on average about $800,000 for each of these
comprehensive studies. But without them, it is impossible
to undertake an effective cleanup. Every Superfund site is
unique. There is no generic cleanup strategy* A complete
remedial plan must be developed for each. The Federal government
pays for 100% of the cost of these studies.
On the basis of the information we gather, we make our
cleanup decisions. Because each site is unique, each remedy
requires its own special design. Each is a detailed engineering
blueprint. Each takes about nine months to complete at a cost
of $440f000. The Federal government picks up the entire cost.
-54-
-------
Construction of the remedy is the most costly portion of
the cleanup process. Our experiences to date indicate the
design and construction of an individual remedy costs about
$7.2 million. The Federal government pays for 90% of this
cost, with the State picking up the remaining 10%. Construction
can take a year to complete.
Once a site has been cleaned up, we conduct operations
and maintenance activities to make certain the remedy is
effective. The Federal government pays for 90% of these
costs for the first year, and the State pays the remaining
10%. Thereafter, the State picks up all O&M costs.
Sometimes, sites pose an immediate threat to human health
or the environment. In these cases, there is no time to
conduct a comprehensive study.
If the responsible parties do not act, or cannot, we
must be able right away to address known explosion hazards,
threats of human contact, or the possibility of fire. We do
this using our emergency response authority.
A typical removal action takes from one to six months
to complete, depending on the individual characteristics of
the site. Some have cost in excess of $1 million, but the
average cost is $330,000. When the government conducts an
emergency cleanup, the entire cost is borne by EPA.
-55-
-------
Using the numbers I have just reviewed, all based upon
over four years of first-hand experience, we have been able
to project our resource needs during the next five years.
Several important assumptions are built into these estimates:
o The Federal program will start engineering feasibility
studies at 130 new sites annually.
o Responsible parties will undertake a gradually increasing
number of new starts each year, beginning with 50 in 1986 and
growing to 90 in 1990.
o There will be 238 emergency cleanups annually, including
190 by the Federal program and 48 by responsible parties.
Because each step in the cleanup process — studies,
design, construction, and O&M — takes a different amount of
time, the overall program operates like a pipeline. Thus,
while we start roughly the same number of new sites each
year, over time we find ourselves managing an ever-increasing
total number of sites in various stages of cleanup,
simultaneously.
This is a critical concept in understanding the limitations
I see on how fast we can clean up our priority sites. It is
a complex management problem. My concern is that we will
allow ourselves to think that the more money we spend in a
given year, the more cleanup we will accomplish.
I am convinced that there is a practical limit to the
number of sites we can deal with at one time. And I am
convinced that we are rapidly approaching that saturation
point.
-56-
-------
Allow me to demonstrate the pipeline effect I have just
described. Our projections show that the number of new starts
annually will increase very slowly, due entirely to a gradually
increasing number of private party cleanups. Yet between
1986 and 1990, the number of sites with remedial activity
underway will grow dramatically.
In 1986, we expect to start "180 new engineering feasibility
studies, including 50 by responsible parties. That's the
front-end of the pipeline. But on-going work at other sites
means we will actually be managing 584 long-term sites at
the close of that year. By 1988, we expect to start 200 new
planning studies, including 70 by responsible parties. Yet,
because of the pipeline effect of on-going work, we will be
managing 726 remedial sites in various stages of cleanup.
And, by 1990, we will see 220 new starts, including 90
by responsible parties. But we will be managing a total of
811 long-term sites, each with unique circumstances.
And don't forget, we expect to be involved with 238
emergency cleanups in each of those years on top of our
remedial projects. So by 1990, we will be dealing with well
over 1,000 sites, all at the -same time.
I say to you without any reservation, this is the ultimate
management challenge. The American people have very high
expectations from the Superfund program. I am committed to
fulfilling their reasonable expectations. I fear that a program
any larger than the one I have just outlined could collapse of its
own weight. The resulting waste and fraud would be devastating.
-57-
-------
Congress and the American people must recognize the many
constraints that we are dealing with in trying to implement
Superfund. This is a multi-billion dollar program. The
sheer size of the fund makes it a prime candidate for abuse.
I will do all I can to prevent this through rigid systems of
accountability. I ask your help in allowing me to retain the
flexibility I need to succeed.
In addition, we face several other constraints:
o Technical Constraints: Depending on the iev«i o£
cleanup required by a reauthorized Superfund law and any
prohibitions against off-site remedies, landfill capacity
will be a critical issue in the years ahead. Presently, there
are few double-lined facilities which can accept waste. There
may be regional shortfalls, at times caused by transportation
problems.
o Permanent Solution Constraints: No one wants wastes from
one Superfund site to contribute to the problems of future
priority sites. There are some promising technologies on
the horizon that provide alternatives to land disposal, such
as incineration and chemical and biological stabilization.
Although some are proven feasible, their commercial availability
remains limited. As demand for these technologies increases,
we are hopeful available capacities will grow.
o Laboratory Capacity Constraints: Current national
laboratory capacity is short of our needs. We are working
to improve the reliability and responsivness of our contract
labs, but problems remain.
-58-
-------
o Managerial Constraints: As I have already suggested,
we face an enormous management challenge during the next five
years of Superfund. The pace at which the program is expanding,
particularly as more and more sites move through the pipeline
to the expensive design and construction phases, makes
effective management difficult. In addition to overseeing
the complex work at hundreds of sites, we must recruit and
train professional staff, provide adequate workspace, obtain
and maintain necessary equipment, provide administrative and
logistical support, and establish the contract capacity needed
to handle the additional workload.
o Personnel Constraints: In particular, we face a
difficult challenge in finding, hiring and retaining people
capable of carrying this program out. We are competing with
the private sector for specialized talent. Often, we simply
cannot offer the compensation, working environment and
incentives that the private sector can for these individuals.
Yet our engineers must oversee the work of theirs. Our
managers must supervise the technical and administrative
activities associated with hundreds of projects. And our
attorneys must go head to head with the best lawyers the
private sector has to offer in multi-million dollar litigation.
Let me stress at this point that I am not painting a
picture of gloom and despair. We have, during the past four
years, built a very effective cadre of managers, technical
people, scientists, engineers and lawyers. But we must
continue to build our team while, at the same time, working
to retain the excellent people we already have.
-59-
-------
In this area of people, we find the Federal system is
one major impediment to faster expansion of our technical
capabilities. It takes an average of four months to bring on
an entry-level hydrogeologist, chemist or environmental
scientist. These people, despite their qualifications,
require a period of time for training to understand the
program, the Federal system, and their roles in it.
At the senior level, the problems are even greater. We
face the same rigid recruitment system. And there are not
enough well trained people with experience in hazardous
waste cleanup. The private sector is a fierce competitor for
these talented men and women. Many times, we are simply
priced out of the market.
Let me recap, then, my concern over the expectations
I think exist among many members of Congress and a large
segment of the American people who think getting-the cleanup
job done faster is nothing more than a matter of dollars.
It isn't.
In 1990 alone, we will have work underway at more than
1,000 long- and short-term sites. That's a management
challenge.
At every site, we face difficult technical problems,
laboratory constraints, and the prospects of disposal capacity
shortfalls. Those are management challenges.
And we are engaged in fierce competition with the private
sector for talented, well-trained professionals needed to
make this program work. That's a management challenge.
-60-
-------
The program we have put forward in the form of S.494,
the Administration's proposal to reauthorize Superfund through
1990/ is a blueprint for achieving significant cleanup in
light of all of these constraints. It is carefully thought
out and based on first-hand experience. It will buy a
substantial amount of cleanup. It will give us powerful
tools to foster a significant chunk of private-party cleanup
in addition.
Our bill will yield some $7.5 billion worth of cleanup
through 1990, including $5.3 billion in Federally financed
work and another $2 billion or so in private-party cleanup.
These resources will purchase impressive amounts of cleanup.
By 1990, we project that we will have undertaken 1,450
'engineering feasibility studies, about 1,000 designs, and
approximately 900 construction projects. Remedial work
will be completed at well over 600 sites. In addition, we
e-xpect to have conducted nearly 1,900 emergency cleanups.
We will not be finished with the Superfund mission
by 1990. But we will have made a significant dent in the
problem. We will be well on our way to achieving one of the
most ambitious environmental goals ever set.
The next question that comes to mind is where will we
get the $5.3 billion needed to make this program work? The
Administration is convinced these funds can be raised in a
way that is fair and equitable, without having any impact on
the national deficit.
-61-
-------
We nave proposed a prograir. financed largely through
taxes on. petrochemical feedstocks and hazardous wastes
generated in the manufacturing process. other important
components in our financing scheme are interest on Fund
investments and recoveries of past Fund expenditures from
responsible parties.
Our current feedstock tax would continue without change.
We have found it to be a reliable source of significant funds,
yet one that has not hurt the competitiveness of our chemical
producers. We are concerned, however, that an expansion of
this particular tax could do harm to the chemical industry.
The waste-end tax we have proposed will generate some $600
million annually in new revenues. Its design reflects our
belief that those companies generating hazardous wastes, and
profiting from the activities that yielded those wastes, are
logical candidates to help finance our expanded cleanup program,
Although the same companies that pay the feedstock tax
will also contribute through the waste-end mechanism, this
taxing scheme will also bring into the system thousands of
other companies that have not paid their fair share in the
past. We think this adds some needed equity to our effort to
raise the substantial funds required to finance the next five
years of cleanup.
We are convinced that there is no need to tap general
revenues to fund Superfund. These taxes, plus interest and
recovered costs, will provide us with the revenues we need to
succeed.
-62-
-------
Let's look quickly at the cost-recovery element of our
financing equation. We expect, over the next several years,
to see cost recovery become a major source of cleanup funds.
There has been some concern to date over the slow pace of
cost recovery.
Much of the explanation is related to the fact that
cost-recovery cases cannot be initiated until- much of the
cleanup work has been completed. And, as we all know, it
has only been in the past two years or so that the actual
pace of cleanup has picked up.
Costs recovered to date total nearly $12 million. But
we have initiated cost-recovery actions in cases worth more
than $124 million. Just as the number of sites cleaned up
will depend upon the remedial pipeline I discussed earlier,
so too will the pace of cost recovery.
As a rule of thumb, cost recovery takes two to three
years to complete for each site. In cases where we have
conducted a removal action, cost recovery is initiated within
one year after the emergency action is completed. Funds are
not likely to be recovered, however, until about two and one-
half years after completion of the removal.
In cases of long-term cleanup, cost recovery is initiated
during the construction phase. But we do not expect to actually
recover our funds until about two years after construction
has been completed.
-63-
-------
Now that we have a significant number of projects well
into the cleanup process, we are beginning to take more and
more responsible parties to the courthouse to recover our
expenditures. Our earlier investments should pay off in the
next five years.
In 1986, we expect to receive nearly $32 million in
recovered costs. That will increase to nearly $55 million in
1987, and grow to $190 million in 1990. The total of recovered
costs from 1986 through 1990 is expected to be $477 million.
This will be a significant supplement to our tax revenues.
Finally, we anticipate that our aggressive enforcement
program will yield some $2 billion in actual cleanup work by
responsible parties through 1990. These will be funds from
private sources, not out of Superfund.
Our record of private-party cleanup settlements has been
an impressive one during the past two years. By effectively
using the current enforcement tools, including strict, joint and
several liability, we have been able to convince more and more
responsible parties that it is in everyone's best interest to
reach an acceptable settlement and get on with cleanup.
Through 1990, we project that responsible parties will
complete more than $2 billion worth of cleanup. During that
same period of time, we anticipate that the value of cleanup
started by responsible parties will approach $3 billion.
-64-
-------
Let me conclude now by restating what I have been saying
for a long time. Superfund is a vital program. It is one of
EPA's top priorities. Reauthorization of Superfund is our
number one legislative goal.
During the past two years, we have put Superfund
implementation on a sound footing. The program has expanded
dramatically. We are seeing important results. It is
absolutely essential that Superfund be reauthorized this year
in order to keep our cleanup efforts moving at the pace we
have established.
I am convinced that we are approaching the point where
Superfund is operating at an optimum level. By the end of
1990, under our proposal, we. will be working at more than
1,000 long- and short-term sites. Beyond this level of
activity, there is a very real possibility that the program
could begin to lose the management accountability that we
have worked so hard to establish. The last thing we need is
for Superfund to become tainted by charges of mismanagement,
waste, fraud and abuse.
In addition to my concern that if we go past the
Administration's proposed funding level we will do nothing
more than throw money at the problem, I have also tried to
lay out before this Committee the managerial, technical and
administrative constraints that do in fact affect our program.
Our proposal is a sound one, based on first-hand
experience and a recognition of the complexity of our mission.
I urge you to adopt it. Thank you for allowing me to be here
today. I would be happy to answer your questions.
-65-
-------
THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS A LIST OF
COMPLETED SUPERFUND EMERGENCY ACTIONS
FROM DECEMBER 1980 THROUGH MAY 30, 1985
-67-
-------
SUMMARY: CASES FILED AND SETTLEMENTS, December 1980—MAY 30, 1985
ICAXS run
toss vcun n tu
ixiiunn
i
{ 1177
1
: i
: i
• i ii
i •
IfTI ! If
1
1
I
t
flKH. TIM
1*1
1W
14
n
iti m
COMPLETED SUPERFUND EMERGENCY ACTIONS, December 1980—May 1985-
BNB
LOCATION
NPL
•0/12/00
•2/01/21
•2/03/00
•2/07/00
•2/Ot/OO
•2/10/23
•1/01/23
•3/04/07
•3/03/12
•3/07/01
•3/M/OJ
•3/M/ll
•l/OB/12
•3/10/13
•3/10/21
•3/1I/OS
•4/01/27
•4/03/23
•4/05/11
•4/03/31
•4/Ot/O*
•4/07/13
•4/M/21
•4/11/Ot
•4/11/14
•3/01/11
•S/03/13
•5/03/U
•1/01/00
•t/n/oo
•l/M/00 1ST
•l/Ot/21
•1/12/00
•2/02/1*
•2/03/15
•2/07/00
•2/07/20
•2/M/04
.•3/03/19
•3/M/17
•3/07/M
•3/07/20
•3/11/13
•4/02/23
•4/03/U
•4/04/0*
•4/05/01
•4/07/03
•4/M/22
•4/M/13
wmui iun MB CIAVCL
NOTOUO
riciuo
ORATI AMD QMS
urn araiioMumu. ttnicu
fTLVtSTtt
CTMIK UCIOMT
o(>aiuv4m nun
NXLTOIO TIAI1U POK
UDH16HT BW»
KM mm
TUKMN CAUCt
SIUKSIH
uco T4imnT n*sn PITS
JOHNS HAIIYILU 4SUSTOS MTU
ruem's SALTACK TA*S
CUmOH DCIMUIIHC COW
autus aotce UCLANATION TUST
tIDCt An ASUSTOS
mun KMD
LAKE SOIUPeK
•AID 4 NCGBIU
•U UDTOID UUOI
MIOH aniCAL co.
UON MSI PAtt
O'SOUIfAM IBJUO
OOMIC HTM
nm mx.tr auui.
ABATDCDT KtVIOS
UPAIS umnu.
tOVI CANAL
ICIOCCKMtT UMTAL 4 OIL
COOSC PAN SITE
TOttOIL CO.
AkANDOMCO BRIM •
WUT PW HG
KIN-MC UNOPIU.
DTTAL * OIL (BSD
ntu
UPAM umriu.
OMS LANDPIU.
uuctfOR nrrAL t on. (ts2)
•ATtS PAB POOL
•UK mod URUMT10NAL
WIBOPOtT tUTAL « OIL (tS3)
muxiu.
OBN1CAL ONRIOL
LOCXMOOO trtttr
SICNO TkABINB
N1U PIOPUTT
BBARNMIK
BATNOHD
covumr
KIHCSTOH
BPPIN6
wn.
OCttT
MILPOU
BICNTON
NOIHOOO
LONOONDCUT
UMCU.
•ACO
NASNOA/IODSON
UASHtUU
PLTMOVn
TTNCSBOtO
•UOSON
•AKKINCTO*
•VNAPCE
•OLUOOC
RU icopoa
sotm MOPS
BIUUICA
DEU1
COMIC
MMtUNCTW
OSMCCO
HTNAN
•IACAIA PALLS
•tiocrrotr
PUMSTBAO
NOIBA
•OCXAHAT
HAXUOtO TOHNSIIIP
(BISON
uiocxron
PITMAN
q^ff»i
WIBCXPOBT
HIDGIPOtT
HALUILL
KLIZAIRB
MKSTCiaSTM
CL1NTUN
NT
NJ
Nt
NJ
U
NT
NT
U
NJ
U
NT
NJ
NJ
U
NJ
U
NJ
NT
NJ
NJ
NT
NJ
NJ
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
IS
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
ma
-68-
-------
REGION
BANE
LOCATION
STATE
NPL
03
14/10/31
•4/11/01
I4/M/2*
•4/12/01
•4/12/13
•4/12/1*
•4/12/20
li/04/13
II/Of/00
•1/12/00
11/12/18
•2/04/00
•2/04/00
•2/04/01
•2/04/24
•2/01/09
•2/01/21
•2/10/12
•2/12/15
•3/01/04
•3/03/09
•3/03/24
13/04/22
•3/03/19
•3/05/31
. «3/0*/0*
•3/04/22
•3707/0*
•3/09/01
13/09/0*
•3/09/14
•3/09/23
•3/11/23
•3/12/09
•3/12/12
•3/12/23
•3/12/2*
•4/01/07
•4/01/24
•4/01/25
•4/03/20
•4/04/12
•4/04/14
•4/04/15
•4/05/00
•4/05/02
•4/05/04
•4/05/29
•4/05/31
•4/06/01
•4/04/0*
84/04/15
•4/07/10
•4/M/07
•4/01/23
•4/09/2*
•4/10/24
•4/11/02
15/01/01
•5/02/05
•5/02/0*
OOUMTl
RENORA IMC
BRIDGEPORT RENTAL t OIL
BRADY METALS
OLEAN HELL riCLO
nu OIL co.
DUAJIE MARINE
BYRON IAUCL AND MUM
EEARNf MUM DUMP 12
BRUIN LACOON
AM HADE
CHEMICAL «TAL5 INDUSTRIES
BROMEAD CHEEK •
AIM HAM
DRACUP WAREHOUSE
MAKE CHEMICAL COW
CECIL COUNTY DUMP
•AEVET KNOTT ft
MANILA CUU
CAtACE riU
•OLMt CHEMICAL
TURCO COATINGS
CAUSTIC HIDNICIir DUMP
AftAHOOWO CHEMICAL
EDISON
BRIDGEPORT
31
MTEtTOM SQtAP METAL
LKTOUM RSTICIM FILE
BIIOLU WAD
•1C JOMS SALTACE
VULCANIZED UltMt 4 PUSTICE
coons un
ABAjnONUt CHEMICAL PLAIR
C C r CHEMICAL
TINIOM NARSM
TATLOt IOIOUC8 MUM
LACKAUANNA IEFUSC
CALirOtMlA MO MUM
KIMLETOMI IOAO
MUXLINC nil.
•1C JOHN'S SALVACE-mOLT U
NT KCONO
BANPrON CTUHMtS SITE
TOCUH-CKUNUMJie CONTAMINATION
MLAHABE SAND 4 CtAVCL
BEVEIE CBCNICAL
SUNSET COLT COUBSC
czmrsButc HELL CONTAMINATION
TIBE rite
HALTEB TATLOt
E 4 N ASBESTOS TAILINGS SITE
INTERSTATE 70 ACID SPILL
LTD
4 LOMBARD «T SITE
BEUS SAND PIT-VAN ELLSHTCK
MOW'S BATTEET MCAKINC
BEKCO PCB SITE
BAND. CRAVEL 4 STONE
MUIN LACOON
EWINC ROAD MOM SITE
NALITOVSR MUM CO.
PATRICE DIENL
•IOIARDSON nortxrt
OLD AMERICAN GLTCERINE-LEHIS «
OLD CABACE SITE
NOIRA
PERTH AMBOT
BYRON
EEARNt
BVTLER comm
CHESTER
BALTIMORE
STROUDSBUBC
CHESTER
TOUNCSVILLE
LOCK HAVEN
NMTHEAST
NEW CASTLE
POCA
CUNSIK
ONA
PHOCNIXVILLE
PHIUDELPNIA
HESTLINE
BOVERTOm
UPPER MARION THP
PAIRNONT
NORRISVIUE
NONTCaHBRt CO.
AOANSVIUE
HESTLINE
H. COSMEN
pOLOorr
LACKAUANNA
ST HARTS Qt
ANNAPOLIS
HNEELIIK
PAItMONT
MONROE COUNTT
HAMPTON
PETERSIORC
NEW CASTU
REVERE
CETTTS1UIC
HINCHESTER
NITRO
AMBLER
UHEELINC
MOUNT PLEASANT
BALTIMORE
HUPPS CHURCH
TILMN THP
EUTON
BUTLER CJUNII
COLLIER TWP
PITTSBURC
BLAIR COUNTT
HCUAN
MARIOD BEICNTS
HJ
NJ
HJ
NY
NY
NJ
HY
HJ
PA
PA
MO
PA
PA
PA
PA
NO
DE
HV
PA
HV
PA
PA
PA
PA
HV
PA
HV
PA
PA
HV
PA
PA
PA
PA
?A
MO
MO
HV
HV
PA
VA
tfV
DC
PA
PA
PA
VA
wv
PA
HV
DC
MO
PA
PA
HV
MO
PA
PA
PA
PA
HV
PA
PA
NPL
BPL
NPL
NPL
20
NPL
•PL
NPL
•PL
NPL
•PL
•PL
•PL
•PL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
•PL
-69-
-------
uc:cc
EXO
RAME
LOCATIOft
IJ/02/23
IS/03/04
•5/04/09
COUNT:
04
•1/03/00
11/06/00
11/07/17
11/10/30
11/11/00
11/02/00
•2/04/00
12/06/1J
12/09/17
•2/10/26
•2/12/1*
•1/02/15
13/02/1*
13/04/M
13/04/0*
•3/Ot/O*
•3/07/15
13/07/16
•3/07/20
•3/07/21
•3/01/11
•3/M/I2
•3/OI/lt
•3/09/02
•3/10/2)
•3/10/2*
•3/11/04
13/11/20
•3/12/02
•3/12/15
•4/01/13
•4/01/17
•4/01/25
•4/01/20
•4/02/2*
•4/04/05
14/04/06
•4/04/10
•4/04/12
•4/04/16
•4/05/05
•4/05/17
•4/05/1*
•4/05/23
•4/05/27
•4/05/29
14/Otm
•4/07/11
•4/07/13
•4/07/20
•4/07/2*
•4/07/30
•4/01/17
•4/M/22
•4/M/2*
»4/0*/30
•4/09/2*
•4/10/2*
•4/10/30
•4/11/0*
•4/11/20
•4/11/2*
»4/12/02
•4/12/03
•4/12/13
15/01/24
•5/01/30
•5/02/04
•5/02/0*
•5/02/22
CHESAPEAKE PCI tin
SECURITY BOULEVARD IITC
UN UDTSTOUC
MCALLISTER OtUN Sin
NOVUAY CNCINEERIHC IITI
HI MIGHT DUMPING
DREYFUS man
VALLEY or me DBUKS
CAROLAUH
UICKYARD SITE
PLASTIFAX CORP
AAANDOHED MUM
i i I DUN (ITt
ptMUou Pines
PCI NIDHICMT DUMP
AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS
AME1ICAM CUOSOTt WORKS
WILLIAMS PESTICIDE SITE
UITH PAIN POM)
CALDWELL CO
Tom CHEMICAL co
CAUSTIC CHEMICAL
MEDUT FARM
ABANDONED DRUH SITE
AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS
DAVENPOtT CUOSOTt SPILL
PEPPEl STEEL 6 ALLOTS
CALLAUAT PITS
RT«0 CHEMICAL
AKLIHCTON IUMDINC
MUICM CUSOSTE MOtU
NAJtIEnA tOAD
ROOSEVELT HIOMAT SPILL
MCALLISTER DRUM SITE
DOCUtT PROPERTY
NAOMI PtOPERTT
ROCK RttDCK PARS
Tti-ciTt OIL aMscmnonsT, nc
COLT lATRRT EZCMMCZ
WAIIISROKO PRIMTVOUS
POTTERS PITS .
REICBOLO CHEMICAL
PATCO PALLET t DRUM
IIOMAT 13<
JOMSOM PtOPERTT
CHURCH OP COD PROPUTT
VILLA UCAHUCHPOINT RD
MITLR OOUNTT
EVERHAR LONKt
DISTLER FARM
CITT CHEMICAL
WAiMSBoto pinmons (R$)
PLTMOOTH WOOD TREATMENT
GAIL POSTER PROPERTY
AHERICAM CREOSOTE UORKS
MIMICMT DUMPINC
ORE HOUR EORETIZXRC
MIT1 FAJM
CAtOLlMA TtaSPOWiR
CHESAPEAU
RALTINORE
DELAWARE COOWTT
ASHVILLE
CREENVILLE
CU1LPORO
COUMRIA
LOUISVILLE
PORT LAHH
UCST PU1MT
GULPPORT
•ILLSMROUCH R.. TAMPA
MEMPHIS
HOLLYWOOD
IALDUIH
PEHSACOLA
PENSACOLA
ST. JONH'S CO
IOULIMC CREEM
LENIOR
CLEREMOHT
WOODVILLE
CAFFHEY
JACKSON
PIMC TOPS
MEDLEY
CALLAUAY
ATHEHS
PRATVILLE
ARLIRCTOH
fEHSACOLA
ATLANTA
COLLEGE PARK
ASHVILLE
CORDOVA
CORDOVA
TAMPA
FOUMTAIH*LEAO
SHAIRSEORO
NACO
COLUMBIA
CLAYTON
DOUGLAS CO
Slum
HCWSERN
JEFFERSON CO
>. ELECTROrORMIMC
CRIOSOTI, TANK TALLEYRAm
CABTOH PLATIHC 6 iOMPER UORKS
WT ROAB
•OrORD HIGWAT
CASCAM ROAD
DAfl* PARM
MARZONR CHEMICAL
HESTERtt CAtOUNA CNELTTW
CROR6E O'MtYAII SITE
SCOm CREEE SATTCRT
LAKE CATHY ROAD STILL
OtSMTROHICS
HORRY CO. PUEHORKS
HKAft POfPILL
FT 06LCTHORPE
-70-
SUAlHSRORO
PLYMOUTH
HADLEY
PEHSACOLA
HEMDERSONVILLE
DURHAM
MOOES
PATETTVILLE
MCHENRY COUNTY
KOSCIUSKO
JACKSONVILLE
CANTON
ATLANTA
DOHAVILLS
ATLANTA
H1CKKLSVILU
TIFTOH
NADISOH COUNTY
LOUISVILLE
MM URN
DALTON
MYRTLE UACH
COMMERCE
FT OGLETNORFE
AL
AL
HC
K
RY
SC
KY
MS
PL
TH
PL
_FL
FL
FL
FL
KY
HC
FL
MS
SC
MS
TN
HC
FL
TN
TH
FL
CA
CA
AL
MO
HC
GA
FL
MS
CA
HC
MS
GA
GA
CA
AL
CA
KY
HC
KY
FL
CA
HC
CA
FL
KY
HC
KY
HC
MS
MS
FL
MS
GA
GA
GA
CA
GA
NC
KY
NC
GA
NC
SC
GA
GA
II
•PL
HPL
HPL
HPL
HPt
HPL
NFL
HFl
HP1
HP!
HI
HI
-------
UCIM
HANK
LOCATIO*
OS
19/02/2)
•S/02/27
•S/03/02
•5/03/08
•5/03/1*
IS/03/20
•S/03/2*
10/00/00
to/oo/ooi
11/00/00
•1/00/OOT
•l/0*/00
•1/09/00
•i/io/oir
•1/11/00
•2/01/00
•2/01/19
82/04/15
•2/05/24
•2/05/25
•2/05/28
•2/04/U
•2/07/00
12/07/01
•2/07/07
•2/07/0*
•2/0«/ll
•2/01/10
•2/11/02
•2/11 /OS
•2/11/12
•2/12/02
•2/12/14
•2/12/15
•3/03/0*
•3/04/18
•3/04/28
•3/05/0*
•3/OS/2S
•3/0*/09
•3/07/01
•3/07/03
13/07/13
•3/07/1*
•3/07/11
•3/07/25
•3/07/30
•3/M/03
•3/M/13
•3/09/27
•3/10/07
13/10/2*
•3/11/14
•3/12/01
•3/12/05
•4/02/0*
•A/02/17
•4/03/31
•4/04/1*
•4/04/2*
•4/04/2S
•4/05/01
•4/05/14
•4/05/1*
«4/0*/10
•4/04/22
•A/fIA/97
9Mf1^l A*
•4/07/0*
•4/97/17
IIKPSOH SOAP BUM Sin
RIVCRDAU MIV1
SALVAGE OIL OP AMBIICA
YILLOU HATCI ROAI)
CAPE PtAI HOOD PRESERVING
c.o. SUPP sin
WCKMORN PESTICIDE SPILL
COUNT:
CORDOVA COMICAL
CHOI Dm CORP
LASKIH POPLAR
BERLIN * PARRO
SEYMOUR UCTCLIMC
CREINER'S LACOOH
BERLIN t PAJUtO
RIDHI6HT OOHPIHC
SUMMIT RATIONAL
BASER TANNERY
OLD MILL
CHEM OTME COW
A i P HAttHIALS
STBIL CONTAINER
CHEMICAL MIHCRALS RECLAMATION
isAim SOLVENT sins
CREINERS LACOOH
KRLIN t PARRO
ANACONDA ROAD Sin
NIDCO I
LIQUID DISPOSAL, INC
6*1 LANDFILL
LIOOID DISPOSAL, INC
LASXIN POPLAR
DEAD CRCCX
OLD MILL
EAST SAT StTX
T. P. LONC
DANVILLE fUTINC
•IXON PLATING
ABANDONED CHEMICALS
HDNICXT 90HP.U. SITU ST
CHEN DYNE CORP
ENVIROCHEM
UOUIO DTNANICS
LEMON LANE
ABANDONED DRUM
UNNETT UUmPILL
A * P MATERIALS
« * I LANDPILL
•OKMAN POERS Sin
USXH POPLAR
•onWERNAlRE PLATING
awART mrtuzxR
ENVIROOBM
PURLKSS PLATIMC
BERLII i FARRO
•DCCRS LAWRATOIIIS
USALU CLZCniC UTILITIES
VetONA HCU. PtELDS
•LUC CTAHIDC CHIPS
ALSURN INCINERATOR
SORRENTO Sin
OLD KILL
PORT t SCOTTEN STRUTS
A A P NAnRIALS RECLAIMINC INC
UOOID DISPOSAL. INC
RUMPLE JOm YARD
NISCO II
j.v. rrrrxi
PLOTD •UTTER
LASALLE ELCCniC UTILITIES
AIABIH ft* f n NUHS~CCORSE
NILLPOINT (SPRING LAKE)
SEAWAY UAREROUSE
ATLANTA
DURHAM
ROOCINCMN
IAUMIH
PAYETTEVtLU
UNA
•uacNOW
•1
1. WSUCAN
•AMILTON
JEPPERSON
SUARn CREEK
SEYMOUR
rUMOKT
suAtn CRUX
DETROIT
OEERPIELD
ASKTASVU
ROCK CREEK
HAMILTON
CRCeWIP
MMHOND
CLEVELAND
ISANTI COUNTY
PREMONT
SWARn CREEK
AKRON
CART
OTICA
HACOMI CO
OTICA
JEPPERSON
SAOCET
fl^r fm^rr
TRAVERSE CITY
AKRON
DANVILU
MUHfTlrti
CLEVELAND
CLEVELAND
•AMILTON
SOONE CO
CHICACO
•LOOMtNCTON
E. ST. LOUIS
ILOOMINBTON
CREENUP
HACOM CO
RANCOCK
jePPKRSON
CADILLAC
LATHAM
ROOMS CO
MISUGOM
SHARn CREEK
NtLHAURZE
LA SALLE
RATTLE CREEK
OUCACO
CHICACO
ROW COUNTY
ROCK CREEK
DETROIT
CREENUP
•TICA
ISANTI
CART
NIMUPIELO
MILL CO
LA SALU
ICORSt
SPRIHC LAKE
WASHINGTON COURT ROUSE
MI
0*
ON
MI
IN
OH
NX
MI
OH
OH
OH
ON
IL
IN
OH
MM
ON
Ml
ON
IN
MI
HI
MI
OH
IL
OH
MI
ON
IL
a
OH
OR
OH
IN
IL
IN
IL
IN
IL
HI
IN
OH
MI
IL
IN
MI
Ml
HI
IL
MI
IL
IL
IL
OH
MI
IL
MI
MM
IN
OH
IL
IL
MI
HI
OH
STATE
CA
K
NC
ft
HC
SC
HC
NPL
NPL
NPL
HPL
•ft
•PL
HPL
•PL
HPL
HPL
MPL
HPL
•PL
•PL
HPL
HPL
HPL
•PL
•PL
HPL
HPL
RPL
•PL
HPL
•PL
•PL
•PL
•PL
•PL
•PL
•PL
•PL
•PL
•PL
-71-
-------
am
MM*
•4/07/22
•4/01/17
•4/Ot/U
•4/10/31
•4/11/06
•4/1I/2J
•4/12/12
•S/Ot/tl
IS/01/31
•5/02/01
•S/03/06
•5/03/15
•i/03/20
•5/03/2J
LOCATION
COUNT:
•i/06/oo
•1/07/00
12/03/13
•2/04/12
•2/07/00
•2/11/00
13/02/20
•3/02/22
•3/03/1*
•3/05/05
•3/05/14
13/Ot/M
•3/06/12
•3/06/14
13/06/21
•3/06/30
•3/07/11
•3/07/2*
•3/09/U
•3/09/23
•3/10/06
•3/1I/O*
14/02/03
•4/02/05
•4/04/25
•4/05/01
•4/05/21
•4/07/03
•4/OB/31
•4/11/02
15/02/05
IS/04/12
•5/04/15
CMICAfiO MUH
CYANIDE INCIDENT
SACINAU PAINTING CO.
VERONA WELL PIELOS
cm or KAUSAU
CHfAT
UN1LLIER/HANXATO IITt
IASMUSSCM LANOPILL
OAK CREEK
ILOOHINCTON CAPACITOR tin
l-6f
ENVIROCHEN
•IUS TOWNSHIP
luuutr tin
79-
PUNCH ITO ItTE
NOTCO, INC*
ARGENT COtf
niANCU CHEMICAL CO.
PUNCH LTD Iin
JACK DENNIS PESTICIDE BUM Silt
CRYSTAL CHEMICAL CO
MDTCO, IK.
JACK KIWIS PESTICIDE BURN SITE
soun or KACO
«At HILLS rOIKT
ctNEVA uro/nwBujw (i)
ntEMCB LTD SITE
SIKCS DISrOSAL PIT
GENEVA IND/FUHIMANN (II)
RSSES CHEMICAL
OLD IKCIS OIL UnMEKT
CUVE UBEK
nono SUVICES
MOTCO, INC.
ansm CXEMICAL co
nuuK's ator DUSTING
H.J. OIL CO
S VALLCT PCS TANK SITE
PIANK'S OOP DUSTING
STEWCO INC
•ICHLANDS ACID PIT
GENEVA IND/niHIMANN (IV)
DUNCAN TtANSrOIMER SITE
CCNCVA XHD/rUHBUNN (V)
•ADDOCX AII/OKT
TIIANCLE CNEMICAL CO.
MOTCO, INC.
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
lACINAH
•ATTLC CUEK
UAUSAU
SPCNCEt
LEHULICt
CKECN OAK 1VP
OAK CHEEK
ILOOHINCTM
P1SNCRS
UONE CO.
NILtS TOWNSHIP
EUMAKT
CtDSIT
LA NAIOOf
KIO RANCMO
OtANCE COONTt
ClOSWt
MIDWEST CITT
•OUSTON
LA NABOUE
MIDWEST CITT
MCCUNNAN CO
VAN ZANDT COUNTT
HOUSTON
CKOSIT
CIOSIY
HOUSTON
POKT WOKTH
DAUOW
SOUENTO
ALBUOUEMOC
LA NARQUK
HOUSTON
OtTSTAL. CtTT
LOOSE
AUUOUEXQOK
CtTSTAL CtTT
HASKOM
HIGHLANDS
HOUSTON
DUNCAN
•OUSTON
EUICK
UIDCE CITT
LA MARQUE
HATE
IL
1L
Ml
Ml
VI
Wt
NN
MI
Ml
IN
IN
IN
MI
IN
n
R
LA
n
n
OK
TX
TX
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
LA
LA
NN
TX
TX
TX
TX
n
TX
TX
OK
TI
OK
TX
TX
•PL
NPL
HPL
HPL
HPL
NPL
HPL
HPL
HPL
HPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
HPL
•PL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
HPL
NPL
HPL
07
•1/12/00
•2/02/20
•3/02/22
•4/01/14
•4/04/08
•4/04/0*
•4/04/20
•4/05/02
•4/06/29
•4/06/30
•4/07/0*
•4/07/U
14/07/23
•6/09/01
•4/09/25
•5/04/13
AXBEX COtP
CAll AHAH PROPtin
PLOOO DAKACE
LACT HANOI DRIVE
MARCT STREET
SONTAC ROAD
THOLOZAN STREET
rtAKLIM/ClMILIB ST
NDLLT STREET DRUM SITE
•LUE RIVER PLOOO
COMMUNITT CHRISTIAN CHORCX
•USS/PRONTENAC
ROCXVOOO SCHOOL DISTRICT
MEXICO PEED 6 SEED
an.''.: UIIML noouers
'S REPINEXT
COUNCIL BUTTS
ELLXSVILLR
ST. LOUIS
JETTEtSON COONTT
CASTUUOOO
ST LOUIS
IT LOUIS
KANSAS CITT
KANSAS CITT
MANCHESTER
PRONTENAC
ST LOUIS
MEXICO
CORNING
WICHITA.
LA
MO
MO
MO
HO
HO
MO
NO
MO
MO
HO
NO
HO
IA
KS
19
•PL
HPL
16
-12-
-------
UC1M
LOCATION
mn
•PL
Of
II/M/OO
•3/10/04
•4/OJ/JO
M/M/15
•4/07/20
•4/09/30
•4/10/27
•S/OI/23
•J/04/IJ
COURT:
•1/01/00
•1/12/U
•2/01/11
•2/07/23
12/09/10
•3/04/02
•3/04/21
•3/04/2*
•3/0*/IJ
•3/01/12
•3/0«/22
•3/11/03
•3/11/14
•4/02/29
•4/03/01
•4/03/02
•4/03/06
•4/03/07
•4/03/13
•4/03/22
•4/03/23
•4/03/24
•4/03/2*
•4/03/27
•4/04/04
•4/04/11
•4/04/13
M/M/1*
•4/04/13
•4/04/20
•4/04/29
•4/07/13
•4/07/IC
•4/07/19
•4/07/23
•4/07/24
•4/09/00
•4/12/05
•5/02/13
•S/03/2I
TRUCE
HOODIURY CHEMICAL CO
cm wiRttN
IACU HIM
VAACAN-OAHLE PARK
HELOT CHEMICAL (so sexv)
PDC (PAS
CREEN RIVCt CTANIDC
MOTHERLOK FACILITY
MYSTERY DUMP
GENERAL DISPOSAL
ANGELES NATIONAL PMCST
TUIA CITY ACID TANK
H cm SOLUTIOH RECYCLING
•1C SPRING RAJK*
SCHO BAT STATION
TtCATl SITE
MOHN'S MELD SIT1
3TRIN6PELLM
STANDARD CHEMICAL CO.
K> HASTES (2-WIV COM)
PCI HASTES (1-ONIV CUM)
PCI HASTES (A-CUAH KPT IB)
PCi HASTES U-CUAX KPT PH)
PCt HASTES (3-COAM MEM ttOSf)
PO HASTES (11HUINOH AREA)
PCX HASTES (7-dMM ECON KPT)
PCI HASTES (5-CUAH KPT AC*I)
PCI HASTES (9-CUAH KPT PRL)
Pa HASTES (R-CUAN Pll* OTIL)
Pa HASTES (13-CPA/NAVAL STA)
Pa HASTES (C-NAJURO MSP)
PC> HASTES (19-MABSXAU. IS)
Pa HASTES (20HMISMALL IS)
Pa HASTES (D-400 CUBIC)
PCS HASTES (ItHaiAM 0PM LAI)
PCI HASTES (17-NAISHALL IS)
Pa HASTES (I-OELA CRUZ)
Pa HASTES (21-EUTE P0» HKS)
Pa HASTES (32-TAP)
Pa HASTES (33-TAP)
Pa HASTES (C-VSCC UHLAN)
pa HASTES (r-rtoT TAP SITE)
Pa HASTES (29HCOSIAE)
Pa HASTES (26-POHAPE)
Pa HASTES (2S-PQNAK)
Pa HASTES (27-TCHAPE OPPOt)
Pa HASTES (25-PONAPE ELECT)
Pa HASTES (30-TUNC)
Pa HASTES (I*-MLAU)
Pa HASTES (15-SAIPAH)
Pa HASTES (U-CNNI K» SITE)
•LOONPIELO AVENUE
IATALA POHEK PUNT
TATDHA POHU PLANT
TAPOTIMtf PAM
A S POHU PLANT
NDIHALE OHM SITE
oiico aniCAL SALES
CUtOEZE TRUCKING
PAUSIM DKIVE
ARLINGTON
AOAKS coumr
tilt
CILNAN
CARPIO
MOCMUNCS
JtrrERSOM C3UHTT
EWIT CITY
to HELENA
Riveistoe
SACRAMENTO
SANTA n SPRINGS
PASAKNA
COPPtRHINE
LOS ANGELES
LAKE NKAB
KinRSIOE
TECATE
aniu nrrA
IIVCRSIK
•UNTZNCTON
PACIFIC TRUST TERR
PACIFIC TRUST TERR
PACIFIC TRUST TERR
PACIFIC TRUST TERR
PACIFIC TRUST TERR
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TERR
PACIFIC TRUST TERR
PACIFIC nun TERR
PACIFIC TRUST TERR
PACIFIC TRUST TERR
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TERR
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TERR
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TEtt
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TERR
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
PACIFIC TRUST TEU
•ANTE FE SPRINGS
PACO PAfiO
AHUICAN SAMOA
TVTUILA
PACO PACO
RDRHALK
ANAHEIM
LOS ANGELES
•ALTON SEA
HT
CO
CO
CO
NO
SO
CO
UT
NT
CA
CA
CA
CA
A2
CA
•V
NV
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
n
TT
TT
TT
n
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
TT
CA
AS
AS
AS
AS
CA
CA
CA
CA
•PL
I
NP.L
•PL
NPL
•PL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
13
-73-
-------
UC1M
LOCATION
STATE
•PL
10
•2/04/03
•2/03/00
•3/04/1S
I3/M/17
•3/07/01
•3/09/22
•4/03/03
•4/03/0*
•4/03/1*
•4/07/01
COUNT:
AMERICAN SURPLUS TAOMA
MUNICIPAL urauu POCATCLLO
PACIFIC leciaiNc POCATELLO
PCI CONTAMINATION MOODCNViLLE
nsnw PROCESSING co.. IK UNT
AMCOH CORf IATNMUM
MILLIAHS i KM WCAOA
ABANDONED DRUM EALANA
NORTHWEST DUST CONTROL WHITE CITT
UNDU't ROAD OILING Sin CHUCIAK
10
MA
10
to
MA
MA
ID
HA
UA
Ot
AC
•PL
•PL
•PL
•PL
COOWTi
39»
Removals
of
actions)
02
03
.
0*
OS
06
M
M/ 11/07
•2/12/Ofl
•3/12/09
•4/01/1*
•4/M/O*
•4/09/07
•4/10/31
•S/OI/2S
•2/10/22
•3/03/1*
•3/07/21
•4/02/17
•2/Ot/OO
•3/12/30
•4/02/04
•4/03/15
•4/11/07
•KX SPILL
CKIL COUKIT DOMP
MILL CUU DUMP
MtAfTTP VAUHIMnF
I7ANS TIAU.
CETmWKC WLL CONTANI1UT1M (P)
SCNCO PCI CITS (P)
COUmlA PAtt BUM
tonot UPIMUK
•AJUUSON CO
SKIUtf/aiAL
STEEL CONTAIJVS
TUAMCIT CHEMCAL 00.
BAKES OIWICAL
GKNCVA INO/POHIMAm (III)
MDMTGOHSn UUtD STOU
SAXDALL tESIDCNCZ
nosvtux
•OtTHSAST
SUE
TOOMCSTTLLE
CALVEKTOH
crrnsioic
mffpf Aitr
COUMLA
LtNIOt
cnmiAiu
OKVEUNO
BAMHONO
OtANCZ COUVTT
CtANDVim
HOUSTON
NONTICCLLO
HDHTICELLO
•r
MB
PA
PA
MO
PA
MV
MB
•c
ET
OR
W
TX
TX
n
or
UT
•PL
•PL
•PL
09
•4/07/19
TAPOM POUEX PLANT (P)
AKEtlCAN SAMOA
Superfund emerqenc
02
83
U/04/00
•3/04/ia
•3/11/10
•4/OS/09
•Sr/03/00
•2/02/10
•2/07/U
S2/OS/13
•3/04/21
•3/07/13
•4/02/24
•4/02/01
•4/02/13
•4/03/15
•2/11/04
•2/12/03
•3/10/14
•4/04/10
•4/07/2*
•4/10/03
•5/01/01
•5/03/11
actions completed by the Coast Guard
•EH SEBPOtD
CUAT DUHOHO
KESWICt HMD
CASTLE HILL
SSMCOLOt UK
ASANDONED DWM, ESIE CAHAL
LONG ISLAND ICACX
KMtTLAND
S PORTLARD
NEWPORT
QOIKt
POOCNUEPSIE
RLLOH COOP ON
•US POLT BtUM
BALTTNORE BON ft METALS
SPtlNCE* SEPTIC SERVICES
Yt JMKTAIO
RYE
H»C. OOEENS
CUHCTSTEK CITT
BALTIMORE (PIES 12)
QUPTICO
BALTMOR
DEM
IMEMMN CHEMICAL DISOURCE
SHAPPER LANE
LUMHIS ISLAND
ABANDONED DRUM
ST. JORH RIVER
ABANDONED DRUM-MARATHON
SAND KET
-74-
TAMPA
EXT LARGO
POET OP MIAMI
PORT PIERCE
JACKSONVILLE
MARATHON K2T
BXSCAYNC IAT
BI
HT
nr
n
NT
U
NJ
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
-------
ueiM
urn
LOCATION
ITATt
05
09
10
•2/07/01
•2/07/02
•2/07/14
•4/OB/27
82/03/M
•2/03/11
•3/04/27
•4/01/04
•4/02/22
•4/04/03
•4/04/20
•4/Ot/M
•4/10/17
•5/01/02
•5/03/27
•2/03/27
•2/10/29
•3/02/1*
•3/03/11
S3/OS/22
•4/01/04
•4/04/29
•4/OJ/20
•A/OS/22
•4/09/21
•5/02/11
amiCAt man
MUMS ON lEACN
ABANDONEB DKIM
n. LOUIS iivu
oa ;i
CTttK
BAtCS STAt 7
HOUSTON SHir CBAimEL
STTBENE SriU.
ACITLONiniL SriU.
MIDNIGHT BUNT
cutco smr ExnostoN
rAMES ISLAND
SNir CXAWEL
FAME 4 MUSTANG ISLANDS 1
FLOATING DUN
SACSAHENTO lift*
mumm CBEMICAL DBDNS
CXTSTAL COVE BEACH
DMINACE BITCM •
LACUNA BEACI II
NCSSCL
NANISTIOUC
OHIO 1IVU
KAUOt
6ALVESTON
LOOK
HOUSTON
TEXAS cm
TEXAS CITY
rotr AiTHtm
HUSTON
•BOMUVILLC
CULT COAST
ffllttfftff
LOS ANGELES
SACEAJCNTO
U6UNA StACi
SAN owns
NOUNTAINVIIH
LONG
ANTIOCN
KB itANsrowns
NI
Ml
IN
n
n
LA
n
TX
n
n
n
n
n
n
a
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
HI
nncn SOUND
COUNT:
-75-
-------
Q.© I
= 3) I
Z3
OCO
UJ>
a- coir
ZO
u CO
I— O.UI
< co t—
a uj<
— eu
to
UJ
o
uj
(A
O
a.
O
as
a.
O
U
— O O
COCO (/} CO CO
— OOO O— —
O O O OCOO
OOO
KlX
3
2
SO O
- CO C C
> aa :
CO CO CO CO CO CO
U. U.U. U.U.Lt
a ss as. a: cz x as a: oscs ssasoscsas
C/}CO COM CO
Site. 0£
— 'O
o
J3
0)
U. O OIOI3JC « >- C— O O fc-
c — j-> — — i-po-S — .coc'-aoesi-d.Q c—o c j
: — — c o > w ja — :* £ js >>— s- c — t >>uS5i
o
>>•*>
a t. E
c a am s
UJ
co
O
CO
UJ
UJI—
h-Z
I- C >>0>C •
. cct->ca>»:_
)— o o o o as — -
•a
a — u
— u. — >
— t_ u c
CO
UJ
p
a.
-j
O
ui
t-
co
U)
a^a
m
CB3 -
-1 O
O)C
u) C —
J="^ .
Olffl -X
cS-
O O 0)
O— i.
Ofc.
UJ—I —
O —
• — -o
LW C
o e
u —
OiO O —
too — —•a *-—
C'-4>3Ott£- «l •— s- ffl C ce U. O —I <3
— o 3Z a. — •oasstoo— wwojs CD z o
010 a.
i. o
o o
-u>
a —— t.
c — a a
— wow
< — c 01—
s
o a
a a
tnta
c u
o a
o -u o
aiwo
a s
— <~
~ c — •
I 3 w
C
£ ~ ^
CO UJ
u
zo
z
>oc -a — su o
I — CO CO
I O -i
: o.s
= 3>C
oc
3
o e u>
t/3 a i--^
Ti^Si
— O co co
co — JZO*JXfflo > 3 c -u*— u c o a — — ®
O — O U S « COONOC£3 S O 03— • UJ «J C C W Cj:'-— '-«OO-"O1
cso>o'5o>^to>iOi uJ— a.— — —3icoco—cjato><9'Sw*'>
(OJJirWO Cl-O? >>— CO 03 O
a.
CO
UJ
OS
a ^j
— >- as — -i —
p-Z^J — COh-
O ujh- Uu-a —oo
*»
-------
Z3
OCO
j- coce
zo
ui oo
I— O-UJ
< coi-
O Ul<
to v
Ul h-
h- Z
en o
o S
Ul >
CO I-
I =
ce.
o
£ C «> O
c *- -o *» 3 ** e>oeo>Cij>-
O U ! o «O3OOI-O>i-
a
— a
M o_c a
c a— « — —• «
> a—j=
H-l- u> C O C 3 C a
CLC
— ia
c o
o
£ 4-1 u)
O co n
— >»
cIT'a
•o a
e 3
>>«
10 a
— ** — C3)C S CC9 —
: o c.c— c— «t> .
ue.so— t.e>uwi.!.-r— c->
«oa—so—ooaazao— -
«SC3CDO-OS«C01>,i>(B
U— o— OJSO— I0£— O1(OCBO>
O
— ID
• > c
o 10 10
>
u
o
10 ——
. Z ~Q
a 4
ui
0)
-I
C
B
to
C
o
o
1_ — —
o
o
i.
o
a
o
4J4- I- U) C >1 *
«J X! XI O C9 • 10
2cc — ao ce —
•a-i-i **>« x-ffl
c —
a 10
co ex
— •a »
in ajo'-ca'-t-— o*J6 • oo o o — o -i s 10 — a*»
j — -a — «(iieajio£a:o3caoo zco (-^xUTSJZio— <-
£ U CO 1- C -~— 3i-— C<-*JS>3CBU.u> eat-OOC C T3 C O. . £: to O JC O 03
*j— o«eoa:3 -a. o— to oit» >,oa^ e *• H-o-i—>o — — « a aooco ——a
t-cc-ceo-Jcflcro^vu-Icflca)— T3j£ j i- >. t3iu> — — o 10 o <- ce < c o
OSes o—ce — s-ocwoooo — — — — «— c — — cc — — a— 4 3 «-
j S jj o> s — —-J — oasc'-jj^moaeBt— au. — ««— CB~ u.u. -ai-oio^ •oxa.
o) ui jj to is v>_c<- aco o •" > t- o s o o o o e (-toe > « ^- c
W££]}C9JM^u>u9 « w •— —* 10 CO ••^(flJIOJCOl*'^'"*— (fl I lQC9CD332rQ.aiO"vtoa'*u3
o*j>^jtJj—. — dso— S-> ao-cu ^—^-irssgccc^:^: c.^ soas— NE—— o ? «4 ffl — H2.—T • & * £ Q ± ± 2 aj:^jz--~o a oc±-_ a o a J(\JC\JCsl(\l(VI(\l(\lCVIC\IC\IC\l(\JC\IC\IC\l
zee •
3UICO
a 3
< Ul
cefflui
-1UI
ceui
Lut-
0<
UJt-
U.CO
SCO
CO
o
a.
CO
°z$
Ul Ul
oceo
a: i 1
oo<
ui -ce
zao
O LUU.
t—
•uo
iz£
ceo_i
uioa.
a z
:too
a
Ul
< -r
a —
>z>
_:uj
ouii—
uzui
uiui O
zo
ecu
CEO CO
Ou.
zo
i-cai—
ou.Q —OO
i «
-78-
-------
-8
OtO
a- was
zo
ui oo
h- O.UI
< wi-
o ui<
a. aso
(O
a
Ul
CO
o
1
a
C0
as .
o
ae
a.
O
H-
|
>
ui
t—
M
U)
-O —OO O O O O
i oo a a a c
v) jtf« c > en>i-
WH O C"O — H-OOlOh-O— C
Qtoh^^ca*** I»^H* &>oo
— a o u > ca 3 > o = *J
o «i
H- C
j: a
• a. « —
a a a oix: i
— —— «.c c 10-
«» <0u>— 3 — l->i
e c c a o Q.J= o a :
5 > > JT S- — ul ^"
O^ O C G Oi C3 C
s ce. _ c o <- <-
— a a-G— o «e
_ _ e o»—o —1-«—o
<03(0<0
a u a
— — ZJC
]e^ 10 —
(B — — 'O
— O OJ '
a
— a
c u
II
Com
O *J >
*) a) O
<• >>—
aw «
— ae
< — — T3 C 3 O«ffl— •">>>
" <- 4) >»— (OCCDC • — O O £ « O *»
- •.— C2 o
3
O h-—
CB e s —
o o —
— O 09
ooOB
XZX —
=a o c o a<
> a«— 09 <0
— c-0 <•>— O-4CC— S
10 <0 C— C O<- 10— t. 3 — — — _ _
C— O^«3O>— a. — Za.O>09OO*>O03— O
aausocc>cc a-a ci—c*j>.-ucccc(U
'SeB«— — — I-IB
-------
o to
UJ>
co as
OO
O.UI
O
a. aso
o
OS
o
o
CO
a
UI >
CO I-
o —
I °
a.
a
-i
(O
CO
UI
as
o
as
a.
a.0
was
o»
— O— O
OO
a a a a a aaa a a a o
CO CO CO CO CO 00 COOOCO OO CO CO
U. U. U. U, U, U. U. U
asas esas as as as as as as ^x asasas as
a
ai-u
3-S
.3 —
u»-O
OUI
1_
I. b.
<0 O
ID
— a.
(a
u. o
•o
c >>
o —
o a (. a ok £
4J C <«a O*> C
—— a—>«—S3>
-—-3039000
L
aiB— <«— 10 C fl >
— i^u-u. — — •^ass'asu.c-- — IB CB
jt co « co— <—i—oiooxo— aao — to
*> 01 ci eije u> e e E u> s 01 >>-e 5 js «
00«!0>i-'-i.>«JS-U)
3OO<8O<0 —— OOS— O>i
C
o
O »>
« §
a ao
0 = 5
— O ui
_ Q. ..
S O C
i- S > i
a ca O
3
oo
• c a a
• (U 03
i <0 O
. O —' -U
• c — ia
>»
as M
«.U1Q
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
oooooooooooooooaoooooooooooooaaaooaoooooo
>-U.Q -OO
-81-
-------
OCA
a- coo:
ZO
Ul OO
^ O.UI
< COI-
Q w ^C
a- ceo
O
ce
i- z
co o
o Si
Ul >
CO I—
o -
I «
u.
CO
CO
Ui
Of
o
u
CO
t—
CO
a-O
UIOC
0,<
CO
o — o
oo oo— ooo oo
oo a
CO
oo oo
a aooo
U. Lfe U. bfe U. U.
a: a: oe.ee.
a s- to as
a o— > o •
3 —coo. ta M s
to— i. a • s
ui — euocaow
to o <— o > oo
_y— x— -o — o. a e» _
> — a — .a — O > — — i- I-U.
e *x>» aico co CL— > to
C C —4-10 _l O
8-.
- — a CD a
a— 01 -g
-^ — 4-> ca o uj os
oi»t. o i- aa> o a e
t. o-a ai a. E cs— »
oci- 3 o — *J —
ja 03 to ^u 73 c ->-a a. uj —
— — u) C— — O IOC >> —
— «> — — — o^ ta«»co
- — O O <•- i- 4J **— C 33 CO
Z— C'otooooc— t-ojjc;fl-ioa)**
—j: t- c ^3 ce — 03 to as en _> t- *J
to w o o to e w c > Zi2 —•a On
— — • o_ioaje5« uj— c— ca
•u J a-o -i CBO i-c
ooooooooooaoooooaaoaaoooaoaoooooooooooaoo
CO
1
CO
Ul
ce
co>
3UICO
ai-
UIZ —
COU1
u
ace
zo
CO
cecouj
ui
-1UI
ceuj
UIH-
a<
ui—
u>co
II II
SCO
Ul
CO
I
CO
°Z01
Ul Ul
a: co a.
00:0
00<
ui .*
zoo
O LUU.
•uia
>_ILu
uieja.
a z
ZCO t
a —
u z
< -z
h-ZU!
O UIH-
OZUI
ui uia
zo
ce ui
0:003
Ou.
~:o
ce
<-i.co
zeo
QUO
II II H
>U.O
-------
Ul>
j coo:
zo
UJ OO
h- O.UJ
< COt—
O UJ<
a. a:o
o
£
CO
UJ
co o
O -v.
UJ >
CO t-
I 3
a
CO
a:
o
i ±
O CO
a-o
uio:
O— OO
O 00
to
O OOO — OO OO— OOOOOOOOO
OO
a- oo
o a a oaa a
CO CO CO CO CO
lfc.U-U.kk U. U. U.
a: 0:0:0:0:0: as cc 0:0:0:0:
o
ad
O> —
S. O —
ot- o
CO U
3 w a -
i- O J-> co
4)
_ (B
01—
3— e
o > to
CO <0 >
as '
1?
3 CO
*» a«-o— i-f-i
a
aaa—
• > JS. 3 3
• h-jzj: u» ao o
I CO CO C— i- 4-
: c e c jj= o o
i o > > o locaca
" O OH- C
3 £ a
O <« —
t- CJ=
O 0>>
S.
at
3 CO
o —
O«a a
3 C —
O
a
I
CO I
g-g c-0
0.3 *j~ c « —
£ 0) •— 1. O U)
"5 >> OIOI- C
C CO C01 >
- O >— >i 3 C O
a a? c—o—>s OCOH-
co—a — — *-«— o a o x
fc- C w fj) .*J 5— >O+^ S «) — —
fi) (A ^3 S» O ^3 0 ^ ^9 Cv ^ S O
CBC.S- — < — -o— 3 o>— > o a<- o —
- - (0 O J= - f -
« i-—~ (_ C !0 4-E*J —— O— O «-— co
— >»<- -JcDco— >f-(V~ cowcico— Jtu^<-< 10 — — 3co— '->'— C •acooa)
c—jo —oN — —-O iJ<>- CN— a O S CO
O>»3SO«I— g*«CD C CO 3 — CO CO tBCSCDOtO-XC-XCCOOco M-la(BZ
010 o <->— o>oe«i«»ccBC-ioa> c c C:»> o to— c.
u a: u.c -£ CD — c as *j i- au» c auc JcutJaia-oc — z^-s>-3aiT:—aoz_3S
-------
U CO
UJ>
* ooas
zo
U OO
H- O- UJ
a u<
a. asu
O
o
as
00 >
UJ t-
I- Z
to o
u
a v
UJ >
to i-
o —
a. u
o
as
a.
in
uj
O uj
as <
a. z
i
00
I-
to
8.0
we
to
—oooo o—oo
a a
to
U.U. U. U.U.U.
as as as as as as s. x t
— — — oooo— o
aaa
ooo
o o
aa acao
as as
asssasss
xct
UJ
oo
o
a.
00
UJ
as
oo>
a
L
eg
E C
<- o
a> s-
tB >
a
Q
(. CD u)
O — «
u)O u c eg a—
i- o to o we a
eg >as — — c 3 w
>_ a. > —o o
i. a • s- w a
o a a.« a « t» c a.— a
a a
> *j-o o
^ -• i-^-^a,^ ntoo^ CD
cgj= —uj oo to -^ c C -u CB ^
— at s — ajaoo .jfoucn*— o'-w
.
^BACQ'^^Z •OlVlcg'OZ— CL
CCO —OCO«— Oil.
i. S ffl • i-CZO-ieBO
< uneao-o ""in —
a. >OOCZCSSu>to
JCCUJ
o -> CD
jjS.SU. -»t3 300 *>tDt.3cfi13
2CO3 ZCO (-CJ3U U CO
03 Q CO «J= » CB 3— i- —
>> to<—ioic>)ou.ea3cBa.'-— _
« u w e— c—oo co au> auMoj= —
— O C ^> j= S Xgtgc^iu -J=
— O«O'-IB
01 v>
taz —
-O~-Q
•a —
. _1 CJ — (A
— — CO Jt
uj •— O i
• O O S 2 •
' d) 0. c u o-
i c > c :
« o >to
SI- O> O-C'-C C —
i-.a>c •ucjocs
< ai4Juj au o 03
C — !0 >- «-*-)-£
J3— (OOJ2C'O33to«:
— C— CO— i «« —
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ^^ CO fO ^f
oaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
aas
zo
-IUJ
asuj
0<
UJ!—
u-oo
, II II
asco
UJ
00
I
00
o
Q UJ
UJ Z
< -Z
O UJ)—
OZUJ
UJUJO
zo
Ofljj
Ou.
ZO
<_ioo
3)UJ —
-IOI-
OUJO
II II II II II II
>u.Q —OO
-84-
-------
w<
UM
or .
Ul >
iO *•
2 5
ES
OR
PR
£2
o -
o QO oa
COMO) «1 10
oo —
poo
o: tea:
ace
Q oa o a oo oa a
U) VKA W
. u. u.u.u> u.
e «e as ec K ecasaeaso:
c
u
— a
£*~ .3
o « > a o
oo • •ax
<• a c a i
SS.5i±:
II
13
c a
3T
xa:
Ic 5r
««•:
S2 S
"•-i. «&
a >*»— « —
.
<• « xooea.
«-.— £ o « • a *.-<•-.
a«— *»— c a— JSJt «•*>
B*—'-i5 = s-'-'
«— oo— a«
i-z = Z3Ii-
o *j c
** e •
e
o
a
u
3
?
J
: s
« 01
a. c
.2
oa.
> z*
a u o
*• a «o
O <• «3
<• a a •
o <- ••— «••
o
? sj
Q a *»
,g r
u
a
S?
a
"w a
c
o
• a«— a eo
ftU W-T3
b a a — — ai
ou c<-o e
w-oc _r
0" u —
— *• 3 —
wo -a i-o
w— e O—
S-.
U aw —c
.t-8 e am s J
•
_ a j <-— oi« c*«— t.
TS < — > <• a <- o «
e —— — woo c
«•«
u c
asw c —
a a
**" WQ
<« m o «
3OO9k«««***C O
-oaso a >«» *• o»» <• — o
•. o
• — (. a
o — —
a -g *• * xz
ea.— s — ca >- o
UQ — «£ o — I o » ao
01 —
|5 S
c e
o <"
a u 2
E i.a.— »cv
3 a — s -
^ O •* X— 8»'-
—-o53^< n
O^TJ « —e *•
— ee c o-i • b —
— so a< y»
u -«.—«
•- e*» •
b»oxa
5ae o>««-
— *' £3
Jz^zs.- 2
io— k a—
Q — «£ o —
a**«i e *l« — MJXUI— — aoo
u«» w> **— -o we: j:
— •«
a-cg-- o***-* aje
oawlo^— ** a •»«— . .
— u<*«« a o o a *• a xi xo «-o
• -^~>^ yje=.i-JccJ>a.3C_>—u i
a x x>--»
a
J
aneo
i (• — —
o o o
^»-> —
«- — — —
a o a
— oo •—
2-0?-
5||35
§
(A
Ul
ae
3UICA
u
ae:
zo
-J3Z
< ^
ircou
w _l
O.XD
.JU
aeui
r*
Ul
Ulh-
U.V)
It II
X. U}
SPONS
O Ul
ui z
5,1-1
H-ZUI
§UII—
rui
%$°
ceui
eta as
ou-
zo
§5°
55^
Ul «0£
ZOO
OUJU.
«UIO
i
ZM
i-ast—
:a:o
-JO I—
0U4^
II N It
ZO.Z
ooo
I—UJh-
zzz
Ul UJ
zex
UIOUI
-1 -J
o-uia.
H ll u
— OO
-85-
-------
Ul<
o to
Ul>
COCS
§o
o
0-UI
cot-
(XO
o
I
CO
Ul
CO O
o
a >^
Ul >
CO r-
o ' —
a. o
O
as
a.
o
a.
u
z
CO
CO
O.O
uiae
co-
CO
OO
O O
OO
O CO O O —
QO
oo o 0000000
U. U.U.U.
ao o a a a o
.COCOCO CO COCO
U.U. U.U. U,
OS OS QSQSQZQSaSOSOSQSQS
ia
•o
o
as
>> • c
•u 3
c »> o <- at
3 *J*> O O co t-
o —— *» o o> 3 c
o oocc—o s CB >> i/> c <» — o 01 ja > »
— O— «- « O at- CB > CO *»*» CB— ><- CB O >-
C 4J4JO10— O *» 13 —13 C *J *» 3S— (B— t t- O— C— C C to 3 U u) Q.J«
O a t. 10 O.Q i- >>(B C O.Q O>— -J > O O CZ C^ C O CO 3iJ C— 3 — Z O^*^CB (Q£CBOU>^coOO — CCB<0— O — — O'-ClOCOOOX — >»t-O<0— >— JSOCBl- —
<0
O
a
w
8§
•on —
oca
— o *-
u a >
CO CO
CB —
U (B
O —
I.
u a
- <-o
o o e
o— i.
_ _ 53 S flS
IS *» C. >>>>CBU.
39 ID 4J *O £
T33J3 — OO •
— — —
o o s
— — U
< >.
<0
—O O — O «
— CB O"ou, .— diaa — CB
>>o— 1-73
^O W33>|CEQ' O *™ *J C (5 fi. CO
C3 t.O^ — U.*^CJO • — couurc-coaia c 03 o JT 3=——
•o fflu. c csou. to i-o—— cn« — -0030.00 3X
O M— CQvfl CB C 3Z— CB— C—-OCO o——
O 4. <- -J U. *» ID -o ifl O — CO*J— J C «0-a*JCOQ
a ——«>>o-coo"'c*JO—a-wto—eoastDcocD — —
o • -^ -1- cBaw>uJcocaso^ — co oaicococ^csoo
uu. u M CB x >— o > a— cB-o 4- •" cat. —-a—ao —tscs
_ . —— CBtBCBS— CB>>CBJ=(BcB
o cu e -J
C U 3 —
— OOCL
. C CO >
•S (0— (0
CB u o r
£—0(0
o
e CB c —
CB S E CB
c
a
*> 3 _
— (3 CB
>>0 *J
c —_5 —
o -a.—
C CT3
CO S O CB
S— -J-l
aCB CB "1
O i- CO
CB c. a.
c a zac o —
3 ST3— Z O
s so o s^o~~"c
3 < S CB— *» 3
a o >>.c c c z
>—— O CB CB
C3>Si— 4J > CB
4.4.OO— CO— 4-
3< I S OZ O CB
JS >> O COT9
UJ C CO.C —u- —
— co ^ -u o> Ul >
>- (. u-as-
CB— 5 O CB O CB
OOaOOaOOaOaOOaOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOaO
U
CO
c?
a.
co
Ul
as
un-*
zee •
auico
z%
COUI
= 2
zo
UIZ —
CD a
-JUI
UJ I—
Q<
Ull—
U.CO
II II
as co
0«
XK
Ul Ul
IK co a.
oero
zui
C£l——I
oo<
zoo
OUI U.
.uia
Ul
CO
o
a.
CO
Ul
a
Ul
— t-oe — -a —
ceo-i
woo-
es Z
zcoo
a 3±u
OUIH-
OZUI
Ul UIO
zo
IKUI
ceo a:
Ou.
zo
>Ulh-
ac
<_l CO
I—COI—
0oo
zero
3UI —
OuiO
II II It-
>u.or
Ul Ul
Zeez
uioui
a-uia.
5ff
u ii it
— 00
9
-86-
-------
a.®
3> CO
ZS
UJ<
CJM
Ul>
uj oo
H- Q.UJ
a
a.
aso
O
o
cr
co >
U h-
I- Z
CO O
a S
UJ >
tO (-
1 3
ce
o
to
t/5
UJ
cr
o
S
o
u
Ui
t—
CO
CO
O.O
to
-II-
ZH-
- oo
o o
- ooo
CO
aaaa o oaa a a a a ao
to co co
a a
XK
cr at
COM CO
U* Ite fcfa U. U*
cr eecrcrx cr
,?
coo
S *r * 3
UJ
C X
> *» o o o x
o e o>oto> **
3 a « a —
o o o o O
.X 3.c a JcjEjE e a o>o *» ^ c— a c — — .a > in *»3:
XC9— — — <
c
o
e
o
a «9 — -a •a c 3—
— a c — — .
>»«
o ax
e <*
o o —
— o c c
oe <• o ca *
f-
8 « O
oaoofl — — —
g -
O — C —
•u — OCX
at — —
UJ
>o a u
o co « c —-a e oca
e <• js co >,*> c « t.~*
9 t* 3 °2 i. * * *-*•** ~
— o § i- I> 5 <- c _ oo
c — ^ ». "3 t. w je s *" r ~
- - -__ o c - o
oca x
c —at-
-o
09 — O— *» C
W 0) o
3<0
as~-
§•?_
-d5?5Si5
— <— « —
M •> IftU. O X
o- - «£ *J —
O — — *JWCu» —
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCO3COOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOO
UJ UJ
aiuta.
Sceo
Jd
o'o<
UJ .«C
§00
wu.
•uto
>-JUJ
UJI-
u.to
II II
KM
CO
i
to
UJ
O UJ
uj z
— t-ee — -J —
2ZUI
at 5 _i
UiUCk
a z
zcoo
SU|
r
asw
*
II H II
zzz
UJ Ui
bJOUJ
O.UJA.
5f*
V H R
-00
-87-
-------
55
.
<
a
U(0
UJ>
t/iac
zo
OO
O.UI
UJI-
ui<
ecu
S $:
S t
ce
a.
v>
as
2 $
o
ui
h-
CO
CO
uias
CO
00
o -- o
QQ
oaa a
COCO
oa
aaa
a a aaa
toco
U.U.
as as
as a:
'O.U.U.
as
oo
o—
c— o
o
ffl-a c
ac—
e ««
aaa > £
— — — K a a»
£ £ a <« .c
- c — - c £ e **— c ui
c j a s. Q-C 9 ai> cr — e
JTCI0 Ql^ OC Q)** O
M> Z O > OO, r- <
SH- «C CCCCH- —o^ — >o -o"**— occ —
o o>O 3>i-a5—>,o.>>a>3~
<0 C 2 *** O)*"* 01 *^ T3 O 49 (Q C •£ C •» S 0) V 00 ^0)^0 *"* 33 tj **"}
_ _ *»— ei«oi«oo£4-j— wa«a>«— c «— OJE a.-a
*» a> o s « • « o O Jt w 6 «— u JS uit. ain *J n — *>—u g-o—*J CT3 c o ffl —
•'• Offl>3i«Clfl3>.«o——«•—*•—«»«-— COS'S
C *- £
> x <*
o*»je co
t-— >« >o »-
o « o c o M
e j£ OH- « —
o i- u> c 01 s—
Wh» 4J
X C
a— ui o
03 ffl 3« —
« . -5 °rz
c u a 3
o c q
Xaoa ^>S a fc. » — _^
o— > aaa3 .i-uJ
kue-oausi- o^oa—oao—c
«» 8 o o o c <•»— oej-J^s —-o
so(-uu3MC££ eo-oocn-occ
*Q £ C3 *X Z™ ^ (* b> ® O
cu >oi e c— a u
— ««-c>»a>— >c*«
a •* o — a <« — o — «»z _
o — a) jj oi o»— C
ucccoa<032 i > .C .c *»•>•> 01 c o»—
c
e —
a — —
at o <« o
-a —
— a
a<-
ecc -ao
o— *— ~a=o
c t-
— O
r — u. u u — c o c —
O 10 ••OCD Cfc- ,.£ — >^
">— O 3 O
• •os -^o
» —•>><>
o-oocn-oc
c£s_— 30
e —
o eu o 3 o«5 M-az —u. —<_euij
£ — _i a»Z — as a — c —-— 3 — x —
oxu— a eo ucoa —ccoc
- o oaic—3-*-ou>o-Ctn •Za —u<«
">o —z« -i a>5 o>o >>4.— o aj
O«
I as
ui ui
as to a.
oaso
*£-,
OSt-_J
oo<
Ul
-wo
>-lui
I Z
:MO
a -
< -x >ui>
32S
Ul
za,z
ooo
I-ZU1
O uii—
OZW
UIUJQ
ZO
asui
osoco
CU.
ZO
>UJI—
zaso
OUIU
II II II
H-O>
zz:
^i W
UIOUI
_1 _i
o.ui a.
-O-
II II II
-00
-89-
-------
Z3
5s
O (O
a cnce
zo
UI OO
K- O.UI
< COI-
O Ul<
a. ceo
u
o
ce
CO
UI
CO
a
UI
CO
I
2 5
|
CO
CO
UI
X
o
V)
to
a-o
uice
to
zi-
co
0-
O -
o a Q a a a aa o
CO CO (A COCO COCO COCO COtOCO (O (O CO CO
U. U. U, U. U. U. U.U.
a. a. cece xcece a: as « > —
to a
>- t.
o-a.
•a— 01
e e 9 o •-> — .. O —
a, ai— -, > a— 3—xconS o so —
— — 3 3 o to o 3 i-BIS a 3 aa.—-. a cj=o —
i. u» u
03 — CO J3-J O (3 O cd •-> _1 X-J S O CD > 0) O •-) a
«—
c c
o —
— e
•a Si
C M
O >
o
OK e
c— o
O 3 C *-
— IB >CB
C <-
O 8
°1 .—
t. 3 O O —
0>_l lAUO^-
c *-
« -a
•o— c
as a
Z §
a
• -. -s
• a 3
o
o *»3:— — i
o— o s <
""*.
91
C <
c «
•H O-J J->
U) O — ffl 3
_ . _ e « a >> c
3 OJ 3 OO -. i- <9
O J3 f-fO 10
O *~ *v J» we •-*
I — o»3 O 0-0
O.— 10 (. C '
00— _
91O <• •-»— -D «
C O -->•-» JCJC S
-J— A
o •<->—
c
u
Ui
K
C
o
S
o «»
• o
a:
—.01
•a ca
a c
C n
«>
<
01
>>C 4
«J •*-» UJ
« — 3— a o
_j o o to t- O
a o so « o —
- =ooas
«
D
t!
c —
I 3 —
O —
O UI U
'- ac
c
a
C —
o —
CJ*.
o-o
u> — -. o
<0 C C — *> X «-
— «•— JC— OUIS
II II
oo<
I*.
c -o
o — c
L.
o
i_
ID
c
o
c
>.o
03
— OT3 — —
•— c o « *-— ajQO
91— to a. oiojc •
— C re 6-0
e to— a jj o o ,
c o — a « —a.
CO >>--» O
>Q oco 01 awe
03 I O IS N U UJ —
' ~ J= •— •-» CB 3JC
o to «x co— c-a «
3 J= O •— ~
o £
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
< --3
QC UI O O O
osoco — —
OUIO
II II II
<9
-90-
-------
.®
e/jos
§§
O.LJ
to*-
cto
2
o
IK
t- Z
cn
a
Ul
(fl
O
a.
O
S.
a
<
W
X.
O
o
u
>
'O
WJ
ua:
3t
tfl
O - O
a oa aaoo oa ao o aa a a adaaooa aaooaao
ui « in
afa:
a
e.
o > c a> c a — come
_ _ c o —— «je o fl — .uj: o'o
(9 — — .C > > <- O 4- — 3 01— OJeax» ao a— o
O 0)
—13 — i. C ——
o—
o «i
C3oo—
a
1O
9 O
C C t- —
»J=— 3 "a
o oio a t ta
- - «a..c
33 a
o»— — O
O —
c
8=
•B
CO
) --0
J aeo
U o
1=3*
£— c s—
or . IB —3 s
. -o-j— «i
• o o — «— o
ao u o • 2 IB a
i. — a a«
5— 4J •O'Olto t.— — —
— — e <» *- o B oo
:oc-o oaess — x*.
W5_i«C*J'--5(OO3(» SOO
— •« c —
o e w—
— >co-JO
•• *• u •
— — o
o c c
. o - o —
ta . _ s
— O 01 O « (8
<0—— C —«• C t. to *J
CD— E» *^W13 ^O^^SC
a*.** .-u-ac >—coo
— -OCJJ—— O-O«O en > rcso—«_i .(TWO
•o — eo—i •" i- «i «~o a-j o 7 a <-
•ac — -i s-o— ujcoio — udcace
- u — c ^£ o a*>
9 > —***>a oii-.j^iffl
T31-«IW— OJtfl-O>U4.— CO S
£ fl c ca c a a.— >£
ia ca<«»« a - ~ '
» ozwo— « —jew — — o ooa*»«> — c>—
-*^i»a. -• — — eauiu. — — — oici a s O « «- O S
— X 3 O 18 O ——
— aoecuii-a.
s. a o
-------
a.®
3 35
Z3
J- (/JOS
ui OO
I— O.UI
O Ul<
O. flC O
a
§
UI I-
« I
a >.
I §
IK
3
o ui
OS <
o
v~
(A
U]
0.0
uia:
CO
a-<
zs
— o
— ooo o ao o
o oo
« w
•3 4)
O (-
•o
'-'3 -a
C 3 « JJ — o —
— O *J— « C O « S IB 03
s-o s-u <- > -aces
a o o.u)e— eccnao-e
&» >>
— «— ooo
41
in *J
*> CO
*j w as t. «i c
WOO « >« O
a o 3 o— a—<»>= o *> w
SO-O >3— U— « O— ><» 3 C ,_UO — O C <- C «
_ic (-3-0 -co 05 as co 010. u.a> « o a » >-
— >»*» OCO_ — C I W — -
'o^H-OTO-O <- >»>« 3T> *» S3— B~ic<-(
«£3C-— 0«
i— O *JT
i aix x 3 e a
> — a) « « o -o -a i
— O
4) 1-
0)
•u C
4) <
4) —
i.
X
33
— O «<-
<-< •<
O
oss
•033
(3 "^ "~
U S S
— o o
o to
B-
O
a
c u> « — o
o— >>>»
— tuU
«jc
<-a»a.c
— OO
a>
OOTS'O
O no
I O
« ** cue
O® — —
0000000000000000
vO^O^O^O^O^^C^O^O
000000000
000000000000000
«
V)
Ull-
I-Z
2%
V>UI
u
2 £C
ZO
uiz —
eo .
II II
a: co
co
I
X.
a
a ui
UI Z
zas
UI UJ-
cesoa.
oaso.
a:i--/
oo<
ui »as
zoo
O uiu.
:pj
'I
rwo
h- ZUI h-dit—
OUJt- OUJt-
ZQSO UIOUI
3UI— -I _J
_IOK O.UJCL
oup zzz
it it u it u n
>u-o —ou
-92-
-------
If
—
ort
zo
Ul OO
< V)t-
£ *
3)
Ul I-
I- Z
M I
a >.
CA K
O -
S °
a
(O
U> Ui
a: aca: a: a:
oo o o ——
o a a a a £
w x
X C *»
x xe w s c
w *> o X— O S
— — c u o o
o u «- —
c
a
<• o
*. a X XC w 3 C w O <«
X 38 -. - _ _-
w — to *•
a— ao a
CO *^C**0 _ _ - _ __ _ __
ce to 0— c — -a 0£ «» e>««> — j - 5" o «5 x « > i^ >
x «» -a o -o**-. j=je
o a 4JOO— e — — — o<-
o o— — — SID as— sis
u o— i- — -a — — eczo as a.
— a
co
as
o
w
e
a
!• W
O
— (-
a
Ul Ul
at co a.
ooso
XUI
X J
0 O O
WOO »
2~ -o
ado c e
O 6 O"O
X3
• e -
3 S) *
Z <-*»
— o c«-
*> oo c
o —woo
X > —OO
_ e (.
ui -u «—
o o «e a
o *» — s— o _
§• — -o «-o u — —A — — x
o *> o c o <- 02— _
UI03N (030 TJ « CO M-DcaOW -3X £ — C
O —aw owe W4t XC C M o 3 —<- — -CS ->.OA—wo —
3 O O»T3 aSCCAOLBk—*>>OWifl0t-w«3aco ous — U.CB— ao uo<- ~£w
-« .. V 9 %..«_= t . XC0- . «. _ -- .Xw-ow-
S l>
eooaoxcT300x
««— 000—coow _ „
oj^erox — o —acc« t» to w .as w c i- a j 5 -0iB
0 X — — > 'O O <» — J= >«•« <0aca.ieajsotato
aj i« CD oiQui— (- 0 a 0 0 >— w 01— »-*»3)a: X'oui A
— JtCB- C£ tt ^ > w—U£ t. i *J C X
ac—o ui^^^jso jc w<^ — c *— ** 0 ••
OOOJWOO—— 3<»O— O33— O X— a
00<
ui .ae
zao
OUIlte-
•uia
> -JUJ
?§^
I
(A _
Ul ZV>
ce • an-
a P - =
Ul
SUIH>
Xui
UlUlO
zo
OU.
ZO
oooooooooboooooooo
ooo
t-Ulfc-
x«x
UIOUI
O.UIO.
M II It U H tt
>u,a —oo
H-
-------
U CO
* coce
ui oo
I- O.UI
< COH-
2 UK
a. ceo
O
o
cc
V)
Ul
U
a
Ul
o -
o
ce.
a.
U
09
CO
Ul
O ui
at <
a. z
O CO
a.0
UOC
tn
CO
_ o
— O — O OO—
aa
cecea:
o
u
aiec.ec.
Ui
U.U. U. U.
a: cccece
U.U. Lk
ce ae
scat
ease
S1
CO *» —
— C CB <-
t. 3 us — a
« O 0» > —«>
£0 s a - '— v.
± 2»
— c •"
O 3 C
•a o 3
CD >>O O
ce *> u
"».— a e
CO O i- O
i. jr B *j
co § o
o ceo CB a
o o o-o
C i- C C s- C
a
c
CB
03 C
UIZ 03
C
300
O O O
CJ— O CB O
0^3
3 > a o
Offl>
.— «9CN>C«aCCCIB3+»— •
z£
TSaj—
-vs. S
ui a
O C *J
8
IB
so — o o o c
C7>*>
O
a
ID
O
Ul
t- C
CB <-
S2r
C w "S u> O
C CB s a a CD —
OO O -J-l — O CD
_ _ ... ^ •— C ^ (0 ""•
^— — — 3 — -OUICTSUJ — — 'OUQ
u)
to
O
C
o
c •<->
1 CB
« S
C O
O 4-
aa —
>co a — c •
C3) C CO 00!-
ffl«—CD— — O O
03
s. e jj— j) o)-o
i- S to s- E •" o wco a <">- c -J
cO-;_
— i-COOS *»— !-4. OC.CO
i. i_ o « ij u a — •o « (o-a-i t- ** S-^X
&.(D ^^ 3 C3 ™«» *"* W W C ^» C cO (Q 15 O ^
tOJt u) < OC Ce— ffl — Z— O CB t. 3) >» O« >> >>— ^— XCJ— U.Z^CB '-'O
c 3 e O'-O<'-t-CBCDO >— — > >> Ol to J3 O
s
CO
c*
CB £9 —
•J J-> to >
o
m co
e c CD 3 ce
O CB— O
*J— O <- C
01430.0 >
cs o
— o >»**
~ C9
(O
ul-0
C7ICD
— Q
l*j ( <0 C —
03 CBO-X
— O
^ QCC -U 01Z o
c-o c-a~-t-
.uoo'-'-ocrwt-s — —
u> —OOZ CcaCBCOlO
351- u. OO>£O CB
O
a
CB
a
03 >.
o) s
ca o <- o>— o> 33-0
— OO~>CBQZC<0
1— xoo >vce
zao
O uju.
t—
.UJO
2:
LJOO.
a z
ztoo
=)H-O
i— 3>H-
ou,a -oo
-94-
-------
32
OCA
a- CAOS
zo
Ul OO
I— O.LU
< CAI-
Q Ul<
a. 0:0
O
O
CA >
Ul H-
tO Hi
O —
£ °
u. u.
x x. a. K ce. 0:0:0: at ce cs 0:0:0:
CD
CD —
a. to
<7> e —(Ata — — OOO><» CO— O C M— O CO CD W <0
— O »J ffl— — C > O O O s-13 c coca co O< to CO S — SOO — w 6 S t >
S — w >» C CB C O >* JS »
co^-w*gcDJ3a> <0 — > o s- ^ — C
s-OOOOOOOCC>CfflS.i-oio— cp 3 3 — ffl— 3CC-OCeoOO>OCOOOO — C
w
CO
CD
u
a
CD o— —
o e— a
> co e
CD ui a
we o —
to — ->o»
O O w C ta w
a. co w e to •D —~ IS
>- i»— C 2 o
— t-CM-flfflOCDO — -
o £ o u> o 3 ao < — zoo o CD o « to — c
to u) a— Z s ^ — to ea — wuj— i. L. oj-a
c i- < C a) < oco— cuwwik — j a. a a eo — u.j£
o eofl —— — — c aw ui « e ui 4.OOH-—o
— U. C-O >£ wl CD S to CD C S- »<•« to
C CD— • we OSZ-fl— — J£ OCD'O'OO -a.
3 303 a co c c—•a a v» ^> a— a *
10
-o
to
w
c
I 10 CO
: w c
O CO
Z CA
cBU)S
aac w
u t. oic
O O « 3
ooz o
— tUfflCC
e
CO-""
0.0
a
COCA
—.- o'
— o
— > J3
a. o a • s
s- — as
» o t-1-
ta v« oa
o t-o
-5-0-0 =a
• 4- O S —
COO >— COO ID
C/l JC .> !.
— u, e • —-a u
m 3 o-J— n
° w -^ o O G3
Q.X CDO
<•
3Q O CD
y o i. —
,s- —
ui>
H> ZU f—ffl t—
OUI(-
LUUJd Ul
ZO ZS.Z
a:i^ 2°2
O U, r— Ul I—
ZO «S<
>UII— h-OH-
u,a —oo
*k 9
-95-
-------
j was
Ul OO
< tflh-
Q U *tf
0. OSO
V) O
a Z
% t
2 —
o
O
as
a.
o
(A
§
Of
a.
O
z
Ul
tn
o-O
uie
CO
a
u
QQ
a aaaa
aaaoa
aaaaaa
If 2
COV CD <0 —
i i. ua. L. > i
<0
•o
ID
te.KX.ec.
a
«
ire
cez
o
M M U) i-
i — a.
i OIO1— OUJ C i
u>
4J
s.
01
o
c
e o
aS3nju>,>
i->.u *»*»ac(- e z-a too. ei c a»
^ O C C C C ™* 2 O trt (0 o u9 •» ^Z *•" ^ C W
O— tOfOOfOtflOlOOO — O— to — «»«3O
<
_ _ _ 5J O
•u — — O C 3 —— u>
3 —
>— —
«,!£
e a
->C~)
Cu)
eo
— 33
3333
e
o
o
o
t.
o o
U U)
O 10
a co
o o u
i «"
u u
c c
o
o
— o
-J C
c —
(0
n a a>co»
o u c c
i. co o o
ij — j
CZ " <-
t.
o
a
<0
e
10
o o o
tO — — Q.
- a >» to
— oaecceoooaas -a.
oic— *»t»«toto —— — —a^w
eoocccccci-i.i.i.i.»eo
*J— U9
u)— O
3 O —
u ia Xffl soouataataio o-uo
(0— <->jC toUiU.kbu.oooo to au.c
u. o— « s- £ t- c -»
««'->>oCCCCCCCC— COO13
— -0. O
IS O C
U C O 9
as IB 3
JO . > Q
U£ M >,a.
•a o c o
e-o 013 c
o w o oo o
u 10 as— .c —
— ? « c
OQfC Ma3ft.ut
— «3Z (0 3 S- O-D —
— I i- O OS C —
© QJ C C9 ^T U 93 CO O
ft-ca-^ar t--i7
O1>V> <0 C C 10
CTJ as— a 2 ^ to
— »s «o o —
«-—ocu)iua3-ae
»)
I
o
01O
-~3 01
">
az OTS
!_ (Do,
94K a
Ul C 3 —
— u. a
4- C •£.
M 4J —Z'~ O
• — ai o — TJ *- •
1 o
a — z o c
a> —co s *»—s
— 2
o «ft- e-o
p jc— o —
'— 3
«<<<<<<<<<<<<<.
ooooouoouooooooooooooooodooooxszs::
aoaa«
____o
oooooooooooooooooooooooooaooooaooooo
-»
utul
II II
actn
oo<
>z>
— *-ce. —_i —
f-ZUI l-CQh-
OUJh- O u-o -OO
-96-
-------
0.®
il
55
-it-
am
s fix.
zo
UJ CO
h. O.UI
< W)^
C u«
I
O
O
UJ
o
u
2 3
§
0,
o
as
<
o
f~
V)
V)
CO
O O
oa
V)
a: K a: OE s as e
s c «
— o—
c
o
o
u
QC— asaoaai
c
o
O ^ "3
> 9 O O
S3 to C — O <0
os-o- > e
u
a
at
u
O
oca ^.s— o— -»•«
y a a SO— 60. — T3«o
— <- o— o — « — "s— s1— — i
(O^OO-O O — (fl CO — T5~S
*»o o— «« ^ c 3
0}
u
10 ^ -a
o C > a. —
SOS C « s-
« e o o — js .a
10
«» —
ca a
us O — s>~
C C u. cj-v .
O— (3 U
O — O£ • C
a «
to
UJ
ir
«^
Lj H-
I-Z
< UJ
i-Z
C/} UJ
- y
ZO
a
o < <
2: K
u: -j
xi/! a.
O aso
C 3 <
uj -a:
zco
O UJU.
s
3
t- a 3 ce
33 E a> u =
— i. j£ — gitj)
vi ce
O
a.
— <- ui —S = C
_ . -- - _ — -a c i ' . .
-> >o 39 S4- t- "J-o « wa s o—— — c 1543 ce S —1C— *J — 1— s >- ;C — U-J3-J
— 4JUS^ ^^COO-
ic— ce •>>>>< to eo i- o C"O-
— •Q—• z:>
< --S >ua>
— ZUJ h- 3 t—
O Uih- 0< O
uj uj a uj
i -§£ 2°S
O ^- r- UJ H-
zo UI I— H- C >—
as t zrz
—<3 S^Z
- - - _ o ui
ooooooooocooooooooooeoocooco
u II II u II II
>u-a —oo
«k ©
-97-
-------
-------
THE FOLLOWING SECTION INCLUDES LETTERS
SENT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF EPA TO
SENATOR ROBERT STAFFORD AND CONGRESSMAN
JOHN DINGELL EXPLAINING SHORT-TERM MEASURES
UNDERTAKEN TO KEEP THE 3UPERFUND OPERATIONAL
IN THE EVENT CERCLA TAXING AUTHORITY IS
NOT REAUTHORIZED BEFORE IT EXPIRES ON
SEPTEMBER 30, 1985.
-99-
-------
SUPERFUND CONTINGENCY PLAN SITE LIST
FACT SHEET
Taxing authority under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) will
expire September 30, 1985, if not renewed by Congress. The
revenue generated by this act is used to fund cleanup activities
at abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
In identical letters to Senator Robert Stafford (R-VT) a'nd
Representative John Dingell (D-MI) August 1, and in follow-up
letters on August 16, EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas expressed
his concern that Congress may not complete reauthorization of
the Superfund law before the September 30 deadline. He explained
that he would soon be forced to slow down cleanup activities
pending Congressional action.
By delaying new obligations- at sites as of August 14,
thereby halting work temporarily, the agency hopes to minimize
long-term damage to the program.
Through these actions, the agency will accumulate funds
sufficient to enter fiscal year 1986 with critical functions,
such as site identification and investigation, emergency response
capabilities and enforcement activity, intact. We will continue
to take whatever actions necessary at any site to assure
protection of public health.
A list of 67 projects at 57 sites where work will be
immediately slowed or halted pending final action by Congress
is attached. This list represents approximately $125 million
in new funds through September 30, 1985.
It is important to note that the Superfund slowdown is
temporary. Work will resume as soon as the Act has been
reauthorized and an appropriation backed by a long-term funding
source is in place.
-100-
-------
3f UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
August 1, 198r
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Robert T. Stafford
Chairman
Committee on Environment
and Public Works
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to a question you posed to Or. J.
Winston Porter during his confirmation hearing before your
committee July 24. It concerns the funding required to run
an enforcement-only Superfund program. Additionally, I have
been asked by Congressman John Dingell, Chairman of the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce, to explain the impact on
the program should the Congress fail to reauthorize Superfund
at all, or for only a limited period of time. This letter
addresses each of these concerns.
Superfund must remain a total program. Enforcement
alone is not enough. To succeed, we must have an effective
emergency response program capable of addressing immediate
hazards to public health and the environment. We must have
adequate funding to assure cleanup of those sites posing
long-term threats. Use of these two cleanup authorities
whenever necessary is the foundation for an effective
enforcement program. Without them, our enforcement presence
will be drastically diminished.
I am gravely concerned about the future of the Superfund
program. Failure to pass a five-year reauthorization similar
to the proposal offered by the Administration in January,
prior to the expiration of the existing taxing provision on
September 30, 1985, will cause tremedous disruption in the
program within a short period of time. Stop-gap funding
measures or a one-year reauthorization will cripple the
momentum we have established during the past two and one-half
years.
-101-
-------
During -the past five years, we have worked hard to
develop an effective cleanup program capable of responding to
both emergency situations and chronic hazards. Because
cleanup of national priority sites takes several years to
complete, we have established a pipeline of major projects in
various stages of development. The pipeline is now full. Some
projects are in the engineering phase.' At others, we have
chosen and are designing a remedy. At still others, actual
construction is underway.
It is critical that we have ah assured source of funds
during the next five years to guarantee that this cleanup
momentum continues. Without it, the pipeline will slow to a
trickle. Long-term cleanup of major sites requires long-term
planning and assured funding.
The consequences of a failure to pass a five-year
reauthorization of Superfund will be readily apparent.
Damage to the program will be almost immediately disruptive
and potentially long-lasting. Yet these are the prospects
we face.
Given the current status of Superfund on Capitol Hill,
and the possibility that it will not be reauthorized by
September 30, I am confronted with limited choices. I can
continue to operate the program assuming that it will be
extended in a timely fashion. Or, I can ease the program
into a slowdown in hopes of minimizing the damage. The
consequences of playing brinkmanship are unacceptable to
me. I feel I must choose the latter option.
During the next several weeks, I will begin to implement
a slowdown of the cleanup program. We face the bleak prospect
of slowing or halting cleanup work at many sites nationwide.
My staff is currently compiling a list of sites which are now
in the pipeline awaiting normal contractual commitments.
These are the sites where work will cease first. As we move
into fiscal year 1986, more sites will be affected. Once the
list is completed, I will provide you with a copy.
In addition, I will place a moratorium on new hiring for
Superfund, reduce our support contracts, and limit all other
work not directly related to emergency response activities.
-102-
-------
These actions are dramatic. Yet it is necessary to
ensure that there will be sufficient funds remaining to
carry on critical functions as we enter fiscal year 1986.
We must keep our emergency response capability intact. We
must also maintain the cadre of experienced and dedicated
professionals that are the very heart of our Superfund program.
It has taken years to develop an infrastructure of trained
staff, reliable contractors, and adequate laboratory services.
We now have an effective relationship with state agencies
as well as the public's trust in our ability to get the
job done.
As you requested, I am enclosing an analysis of the
costs to run the Superfund enforcement-only program. I have
also included my project-ion of additional resources needed
to fund a continued emergency cleanup program as part of a
plan to phase down the rest of the Superfund effort. I
emphasize, however, this is not a solution to the Superfund
reauthorization problem.
Superfund is not a short-term program that lends itself
to short-term fixes. It is a long-term program that must
have a long-term funding commitment. A one-year reauthorization
is not good enough for Superfund. The continuity of a fiver
year reauthorization is essential.
The nation has made a tremendous emotional and financial
investment in Superfund. One that must be respected. I urge
you to work with your colleagues in the Senate and the House
to complete reauthorization of this vital program as soon as
possible.
-103-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
*& 16/965
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Robert T, Stafford
Chairman
Committee on Environment _ -
and Public Works
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Stafford:
In my August 1 letter to you, I stated my concern that work
on reauthorization of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) would not be completed
by September 30, 1985. As you are aware, on that date our authority
to collect taxes that fund cleanup activities at abandoned and
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites will expire.
Because of this uncertainty, on August 14 I began to slow
down or halt work at sites where we were scheduled to obligate
funds before September 30 of this year. I must take this action
to conserve all available funds for continuation of essential
operations such as site identification and investigation, emergency
response actions and enforcement activities.
As I indicated in my earlier letter, I am now providing a
list of 67 sites where long-term work is underway and obligation
of funding for new activity will be delayed. These sites,
scheduled to receive new funding after August 14, represent
approximately $125 million in cleanup activity. These obligations
must be delayed in order to keep sufficient funds in reserve to
continue essential activities beyond September 30.
I stress that the decisions I am forced to make now are
short-term steps necessary to keep the program operational beyond
September 30 of this year. Work will resume at these sites once
an appropriation backed by an assured long-term funding source
is in place. We will continue to take whatever actions are
necessary at any site to protect the public health.
My staff and I stand ready to assist you as you continue to
work to expedite the reauthorization process.
fi Sincerely,
^L*^ V
^ Lee H. Thomas
-104-
-------
SUPERFUND CONTINGENCY PLAN
SITE LIST
EPA REGION I
Site Nane Stagea
Charles-George Reclamation Trust RA
Landfill, Tyngsbourough, MA
Groveland, Groveland, MA RD
Hoconoco Pond, Westhorough, MA RD
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump, Ashland, MA RD
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump, Ashland, MA RA
Beacon Heights Landfill, Beacon Falls, CT RD
McKin Co., Gray, ME RA
Picillo Farm, Coventry, RI RD
EPA REGION II
Site Name Stagea
Bog Creek Farm, Howell Township, NJ RD
Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services, Bridgeport, NJ IRM
Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services, Bridgeport, NJ RA
Burnt Fly Bog, Marlboro Township, NJ RD
D'Imperio Property, Hamilton Township, NJ . RA
GEMS Landfill, Gloucester Township, NJ RD
GEMS Landfill, Gloucester Township, NJ IRM
Glen Ridge Radium Site, Glen Ridge, NJ RD
Goose Farm, Plumstead Township, NJ RD
Helen Kramer Landfill, Mantua Township, NJ RD
Lipari Landfill, Pitman, NJ RD
Montclair/West Orange Radium Site, Montclair/West Orange, NJ RD
Swope Oil & Chemical Co., Pennsauken, NJ RD
Marathon Battery Corp., Cold Springs, NY RD
Clean Well Fields, Clean, NY RD
Sinclair Refinery, Wellsville, NY RD
Sinclair Refinery, Wellsville, NY IRM
Wide Beach Development, Brant, NY RD
York Oil Co., Moira, NY RD
EPA REGION III
Site Nane Stage3
Douglassville Disposal, Douglassville, PA RD
Drake Chemical, Lock Haven, PA RD
Lackawanna Refuse, Old Forge Borough, PA RA
Lansdowne Radiation Site, Lansdowne, PA RD
Moyers Landfill, Eagleville, PA RD
Tysons Dump, Upper Merion, PA RA
Sand, Gravel & Stone, Elkton, MD RD
-lub-
-------
8/14/85
SUPERFUND CONTINGENCY PLAN
SITE LIST
EPA REGION IV
Site Name stage8
Davie Landfill, Davie, PL RD
Miani Drum Services, Miani, FL RD
EPA REGION V
Site Name Stage3
Acme Solvent, Marxist own, IL RD
Byron Salvage Jfard, Byron, IL RA
Outboard Marine Corp. ,Waukegan, IL RD
Wauconda Sand & Gravel, Wauconda, IL RD
Charlevoix Municipal Nell, Charlevoix, MI RD
Charlevoix Municipal Well, Charlevoix, MI RA
Northemaire Plating, Cadillac, Ml RD
Verona Well Field, Battle Creek, MI RD
Verona Well Field, Battle Creek, MI RA
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field, Eau Claire, WI IRM
Schmaltz Dump, Harrison, WI RD
Arcanum Iron & Metal, Oarke County, OH RD
New Lyme Landfill, New Lyrae, OH RD
Old Mill, Rock Creek, OH RD
Old Mill, Rock Creek, OH RA
Lehillier/Mankato Site, Lehillier/Mankato, MN RD
EPA REGION VI
Site Name Stagea
Bayou Bonfuca, Slidell, LA RD
Bayou Bonfuca, Slidell, LA RA
Old Inger oil Refinery, Darrow, LA RA
Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc., Grand Prairie, TX RA
REGION VII
Site Nane Stage3
Ellisville Site, Ellisville, MO RA
Aidex Corp., Council Bluffs, IA RA
-106-
-------
8/14/85
SUPERFIKD COOTINGENCY PLAN
SITE LIST
REGION VIII
Site Name Stage9
Wbodbury Chemical Co., Conuerce City, CO RA
EPA REGION IX . .
Site Name Stage3
Celtor Chemical Works, Hocpa, CA RD
Celtor Chanical Works, Hocpa, CA RA
Del Nbrte County Pesticide, Crescent City, CA RD
San Gabriel Valley, La Puente, CA IRM
REGION X
Site Name
Connencanent Bay, Well 12A, Tacona, WA
Western Processing Co., Inc., Kent, WA
Western Processing Co., Inc., Kent, WA
United Chrone Products, Inc., Corvallis, OR
a Stage refers to the phase of remedial action. RD * detailed design stage or
development of plans and specifications; RA • ranedial action or the actual
implementation of the selected cleanup option; IRM « initial Remedial Measure
or implementation of a anall cleanup action prior to final remedy.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-107- Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
-^0. i;iin'j;3 60604
-------
REGIONAL PCJBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICES
REGION I EPA9115
BROOKE CHAMBERLAIN COOK
DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
JFK FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON, MA 02203
COMM: (617)223-7223
FTS: 223-6304
REGION II EPA9213
JIM MARSHALL, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10278
COMM: (212)264-2515
FTS: 264-2515
REGION III EPA9315
JANET LUFFY, ACTING DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
841 CHESTNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
COMM: (215)597-9370
FTS: 597-9370
REGION IV EPA9413
FRANK REDMOND, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
345 COURTLAND STREET, N.E.
ATLANTA, GA 30308
COMM: (404)881-3004
FTS: 257-3004
REGION V EPA9513
JON T. GRAND, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
230 S. DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO, IL 60604
COMM: (312)353-2072
FTS: 353-2072
CINCINNATI LAB EPA8061
ANDREA TANNER
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
26 W. CLAIR
CINCINNATI, OH 45268
COMM: (513)684-7771
FTS: 684-7771
REGION VI EPA9621
PHILIP CHARLES, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
1201 ELM STREET
DALLAS, TX 75270
COMM: (214)767-2630
FTS: 729-2630
REGION VII EPA9715
ROWENA MICHAELS, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
726 MINNESOTA AVENUE
KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
COMM: (913)236-2803
FTS: 757-2803
REGION VIII EPA9812
DORIS SANDERS, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
SUITE 900, 1860 LINCOLN ST.
DENVER, CO 80295
COMM: (303)837-5927
FTS: 327-5927
REGION IX EPA9912
DEANNA WIEMAN, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
215 FREMONT STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
COMM: (415)974-8083
FTS: 454-8083
REGION X EPA9018
BOB JACOBSON, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98101
COMM: (206)442-1203
FTS: 399-1203
RTP LAB EPA8070
DEBBIE JANES
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
ENVIRON. RESEARCH CENTER
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC
COMM: (919)541-4577
FTS: 629-4577
-108-
-------
-------
0.®
3W
Z3
otn
_ UJ>
§"" 'o
O
h- O.UI
< cot-
O Ul<
a. ecu
O
o
X.
CO
w
o
Ul
o
u
2 3
o
s
a.
CO
CO
UJ
§
-1 Ul
a v>
<
w
0.0
uioe
515
ZH-
co
O O —
OO
oa o
CO CS
a: IK
O O
QQC a a aoaaaa a a a
as as
— a
to
c
OO
t» C — o —
u)
•a
4J^£ V) e «! — UJ
—« -o t. > c — •o
o«—ojxo > — — o
o i- a-u —i- as o > to a i—x a
C N u» i-fllCB>0> -u 3(8— O^CS 3 O — O 10 ** <•--a — — o3Ooio — -i-o-oaoa > — -3 to aj
(B — t- ** C C *• 6 ^ O*** ^ £ to C3 ™. CO4J«^*>4->« C— O
* " — lB«t(B»>SCS
o e — -a _ .
ui a. a c — _j u a o
003 *J — a. s-z
— <• — — oo«{\j c 3 acu —
O Q.a> e <- i- *»^ as co § c
4j.uaor u-to •< a x i-a too—u>—>ooc
tOC Ul CO 6- —4J4JX2G.O<9^(BO — Z ** 3 X
totuccs >o c <5 o >Z-at- c — cu-a
7 OO to >s- > fflHQ* 3 O C)-u > S UO— O
~- '• - Q t- *J to OO3i- > O O
to —— C CD
*» •<•- CB S
fc.-o — — — O
_i
^
co
CD
<
u c/)
'-<-O
>«> _J33—
cc
— — CT3
a»J u> ca
^J UJ
(SCO 0.
00:0
ZUI
IKI-.
ui «u.< —o —
it it » u n u
>u-a —<
-88-
-------
U t/)
.a- too:
ui oo
H- O.LJ
a ui<
a. isu
U
w
O
O
C/3
O
a.
a
at
a.
o
a
uice
(A
3)
O O — OO
— O
a a a a aaa o
t/> U) t/l C/3 C/5 V3 C/J C/)
U, U.U. It U- U. U U. U,
a: at at atat ai atatatatat at atatat ~ —
ao a
a
aaiZ
— 3 «•
£gc
c o •'
91
1
>>0)JC I
O 3 U I
*• o — ,'
wo
C eg
(A CD CO
co >CD c
e <- o
a
S.C
H. 01
3
U— 1.
o ca o
o <~ o
a •
— a a.
^ —— o>
— —.WC 3T3OCS— .C £ a
- i t. co .* a "
_ >» >— to — -o co -o
o a cs x o — co a— t
§f 5 c > w a to
10 CO >9 « « ,
a
— a
c «
3 =
§£=•
• o o o
a sa—co-aooccu
ctaoc e
c **
<0 C
13-1 3
— O
— •a u
— o a
> o- s
M > > «
— ajo — •o— ooo— ffl«— ooo — — «^
o— aow
tflo.a.u5»-
— »
co a aoo
O 01 O O
c ca
? = .-=§
I — O O
u
en
o
o
— u
— — CD
— U (0
—
*.— o— " -o
•a eos I CB-IU-0 3
'O^*OO *< C>>u)
: CZfflh-—(A « U CO a C
u I
a
o
o c 0020
3 > O 0—0
pi- — u • to >>
a
S ao
3 SO
a 3
Q •"•>
CM CO
at
Q
U
>
CO
•o
3 O — O— « a 03
wf-o— to— e-*»«8«a
ca — — uieocs oo
— SO*- — £ ** to t- S-
W 43 3 1. OO U3 O CD 1-
CO —— — CD> eo<
CX O-B >0 C
U4-— — as
— •a — — c3io «z
> C CD CD CO.—
c «3 <— a o
U.-Q-Q co
c ca 5 b <-
o —— — o
s- co O C (- —
iu — *> C s — ">
— > « o- cos M
— a > o s- «j to
aw CD <-o ui — — o
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooaoooooooooooooo
r o
JUI
oo<
>_JUI
— t—as
h-ZUI
o uit—
ozu
UlUlO
zo
^ CXU1
•'Nia.£
. zzz
puio
il ll it
-80-
|